MAY  1  2  2004 
IxHEoioG^^siMlNARYl 


APOSTOLIC 


History  AND  Literature. 


PREPARED  BY  THE  SENIOR  CLASS, 


KOR   THK    LSE   OF   STUDENTS    IN 


Princeton  Theological  Se7ninary. 


COMPILED  FROM  NOTES  UPON  THE  LECTURES  OF 


DR.   C.   W.    HODGE. 


F  R  I  y  C  ETO  y 


LIBRARY  OF  PRINCETON 


MAY  1  2  2004 


THEOLOGICAL  SEMINARY 


»■  K  E  S  S      PRIMING      E  S  T  A  B  L  I  S  H  M  1.  X  T  , 


1878. 


PREFACE. 


This  volume  has  been  prepared  by  the  members  of  the  Class  of 
1878,  for  the  use  of  students  in  Princeton  Theological  Seminary. 
While  it  is  issued  with  the  permission  of  Dr.  C.  W.  Hodge,  yet  it 
contains  only  what  the  editors  could  gather  from  notes  in  their 
possession,  and  has  not  been  reviewed  nor  corrected  by  the  Professor. 
The  Editors  have  endeavored  to  adhere  to  the  idea  of  a  synopsis, 
and  at  the  same  time  to  embody  as  much  as  possible  of  the  essential 
matter  of  the  course. 


Apostolic  History   and  Literature. 


PART  I -CHAPTERS  1 -XII. 


mTKODUCTORY   REMARKS. 

There  are  tlivce  special  subjects  of  critical  attack  on 
the  Book  of"  Acts  : 

L  Authorship.  1.  The  "  "vve  "  passages  in  the  latter 
part  of  the  book — are  thpse  by  the  same  author?  2.  Is 
it  a  e;enuine  history,  or  is  it  a  Uiidinnj  -uritiug,  as  tlie 
Germans  call  it — that  is,  is  it  written  to  reconcile  history 
and  doctrine  ?  In  favor  of  the  latter,  tliey  allege  an 
assimilation  between  Paul  and  Peter.  There  is  lio  doubt 
a  certain  similarity  both  in  doctrine  and  miracles,  between 
the  former  and  latter  part  of  the  book. 

II.  The  Historical  Qvestiov.  Tlie  accepted  epistles 
of  Paul  are  the  source  of  the  foundation  facts.  The 
Acts,  therefore,  should  harmonize  with  these  epistles. 
The  destructive  critics  magnify  a})parent  discrepancies 
into  disagreements. 

III.  The  Supernatural.  Tliey  regard  Paul  as  the  cen- 
tral figure  ;  the  founder  and  builder  of  Christianity.  Is 
he  a  believer  in  the  supernatural  ?  How  is  his  belief  in 
his  conversion  to  be  accounted  for  on  naturalistic  prin- 
ciples ? 

The  above  points  we  treat  as  we  reaclj  them,  for  thus 
(«)  we  do  not  traverse  the  sanie  ground  twice,  and  (h) 
they  may  be  more  intelligently  considered. 


CHRON^OLOaY. 

Chronological  Table, 

A.  D.  60.— Pestus  succeeds  Felix— Acts  24  :  27. 
2  years  a  prisoner  in  Cuesarea. 
58— Arrest..— Acts  21  :  33. 

Sd  .foiirne)/.=^S  years  in  Ephesus,  and  winter 
in  Greece. 
54. 
2nd  JoiLDiey. — 18  niontlis  in  Achaia. 

Voyages  in  A.  M.  and  to  Europe — 1  year. 
50-51. — Council  of  Jerusalem. 

1st   Journeif.  —  Antiocli,    Cyprus,    Pisidia, 
Paniphylia,  Jerusalem. 
.         44. — Death  of  Agrippa. — Acts  XII. 
Visit  to  Jerusalem. 
3  years  in  Arabia,  Jei'usalera,  Tarsus, 
1  year  in  Antioch. 
_    ^36-37. — Conversion. 

The  book  covers  a  period  of  34  years ;  from  death  of 
Christ  to  A.  D.  63  or  64,  the  end  of  Paul's  first  impris- 
onment. There  is  a  lack  of  chronological  statements, 
but  we  have  two  fi.Ked  points,  and  otlier  events  are  cal- 
culated from  these  : — 1.  The  beginning  of  the  1st  Jour- 
ney. Death  of  Herod  Agrippa,  A.  D.  44. — Acts  12. 
2.  The  end  of  3d  Journey.  Accession  of  Festus,  A.  D. 
60.— Acts  24. 

Paul  was  arrested  in  A.  I).  58 — in  the  fall  of  A.  D. 
60,  w^as  sent  to  Rome — arrived  spring  of  A.  D.  61 — there 
2  years,  which  would  give  us  A.  D.  63  or  perhaps  64. 
The  persecution  of  Nero  was  in  64,  therefore  Paul's 
sojourn  was  finished  before  this.  Reckoning  backward, 
the  winter  before  was  spent  in  Corinth,  to  which  place 
he  came  from  Ephesus  in  spring  of  57.  At  Ephesus  3 
years.  Came  to  Ephesus  in  54.  This  is  the  dividing- 
line  between  2d  and  3d  journeys — slightly  marked  in 
Acts  18:  22.  2nd  Journey. — 18  months,  spent  in  Corinth 
gives  52  when  he  arrived  there.  Lons;  traveling  in  Asia 
Minor  and  Europe  consumed  at  least  1  year,  which  makes 
beginning  of  2ud  Journey  A.  D.  50  or  51  (Acts  15  :  41 — 


18  :  22.)  Before  thi«  he  was  lit  Council  of  Jerusalem 
(Acts  15.)  The  1st  Jouruev  ruust  Ijave  been  between 
A.  D.  45  and  49. 

Gal.  2  :  1 — "  14  years  after  " — probably  refers  to  the 
time  intervenini:^  between  his  conversion  (A.  D.  36  or  37) 
and  tlie  Council  of  Jerusalem  A.  1).  50  or  61.  Tl)is  gives 
about  enougli  room  for  details  in  Acts  and  Gal.  for 
Paul's  actions.  2  Cor.  11  :  32,  Paul  escajjcd  from  Damas- 
cus through  a  window  during  the  reign  of  Aretas,  king 
of  Arabia,  Damascus  was  a  Eoman  post,  when  could  it 
have  come  under  power  of  the  king  of  Arabia?  The 
only  gap  in  the  Roman  possession  was  at  death  of  Tibe- 
rius, A.  I).  37.  Tliis  was  a  period  of  border  wars,  and 
the  facts  are  not  well  known.  Damascus  may  liave  been 
caj'tured  at  this  time  by  Aretas. 

Design  of  the  Book  of  Acts. — "  It  is  not  the  biog- 
raphy of  Peter  and  Paul,  as  Apostles  by  way  of  emi- 
nence;  for  each  of  them  is  prominent  in  one  part  only, 
and  the  whole  history  of  neither  is  recorded  in  detail.  It 
is  not  a  general  history  of  the  Apostolic  period,  as  dis- 
tinguished from  the  ministry  of  Christ  himself;  for  many 
intere3ting  facts  belonging  to  that  subject  are  omitted, 
some  of  which  have  been  preserved  in  the  Ejiistles. 
But  the  hook  before  i(s  is  a  fpfckil  history  of  ihc  jjlcnidng  and 
extension  of  the  e/n/reh,  both  an/ove/  Jncs  and  Ge/diles,  by  the 
gradual  estahlishwevt  of  radiating  ventres  o?  sovrees  of  wfiv- 
ence  at  certain  salient  points  throughout  a  laige  jxirt  oj  the 
empire,  beginning  at  Jeriisahw  and  ending  at  ii'cwf." — (Alex- 
ander's Acts,  page  13  of  Introduction.) 


SECTION  I.     THE  CHURCH  IN  JERUSALEM. 

CHAPTERS    I — VII. 

I.  Ch.  I. — n. — Founding  of  the  Church  A,  D.  30—36. 
(1.)  Introduction,  I:  1 — 11.  The  introduction  is  appro- 
priateand  skilful.  Fundamental  thought  is  carried  into  all 
details — the  founding  of  the  church  by  the  risen  Christ. 
This  is  presented  as  the  immediate  act  of  Christ.  lie  goes 
to  the  Father  and  yet  continues  his  work  in  the  church. 
From  the  Father's  right  hand  lie  sends  the  Sjtirit  as  He 


had  promised.  This  is  the  reason  that  Luke  dates  from 
the  Asceusioii.  He  regards  the  Ascension  as  the  turning 
point  between  the  two  Dispensations.  The  Church  is 
the  Kingdom  of  Christ  by  the  Holy  Spirit.  This  is  the 
fundamental  idea  of  the  church  and  a  fulfiUraent  of  the 
O.  T.  pretliction  of  the  Spirit's  work  in  the  last  Dispen- 
sation. Luke  regar^ls  this  as  the  fuliillment  of  Christ's 
promise  to  lead  them  into  all  truth. 

The  "  former  treatise"  he  describes  as  containing 
what  "Jesus  bej'in  both  to  do  and  teach."  Christ's  work 
was  not  completed;  He  liad  yet  much  to  teach  by  the 
Apostles  through  the  Spirit.  He  refers  to  the  "  many 
infallible  proofs"  of  the  resurrection.  These  appear- 
ances were  continued  during  40  days,  atiording  ample 
time  for  many  to  recognize  him.  By  the  extraordinary 
character  of  these  appearances,  diftering  from  any  pre- 
vious ones.  He  accustome  I  them  to  the  idea  of  His 
omnipresence.  Luke  looks  upon  the  Resurrection  and 
Ascension  as  one  composite  act,  and  the  founding  of  the 
church  as  the  work  of  the  risen  Christ.  His  parting 
instructions  relate  to  The  Place..  They  were  not  to  depart 
from  Jerusalem, — not  because  this  was  the  most  con- 
venient place,  for  most  of  the  disciples  were  from  G-ali- 
lee.  There  they  had  been  wont  to  associate  with 
Him,  and  Jerusalem  had  forfeited  its  claims  to  be  the 
center  of  the  new  Dispensation.  To  all  believing  Jews 
the  promises  were  thus  fulfilled,  and  the  fact  is  emplia- 
sized  that  the  Christian  church  is  not  represented  as 
antagonistic  to  the  Jewish  Church,  but  as  a  development 
of  it,  as  would  have  appeared  if  He  had  set  up  His  King- 
dom in  another  part  of  the  country.  This  was  to  be  the 
mother  of  churches  as  long  as  they  were  allowed  to 
remain  there,  and  in  all  cities  the  offer  of  salvation  was 
made  first  to  the  Jews. 

Nature  of  the  Kingdom.  "  The  promise  of  the  Father," 
(Luke  24:  49,)  to  send  the  H.  S.  signalizes  the  spiritual 
nature  of  the  Kingdom.  The  church  is  a  fulfillment  of 
the  O.  T.  Dispensation  as  a  promising  system.  Li  v.  5 
the  two  Dispensations  are  contrasted.  In  the  0.  T.,  bap- 
tism was  with  water,  in  the  N.  T.,  with  the.  Spirit.  In 
O.   D.    the    sign    predominated — in    X.  D.    the    Spirit. 


9 

Observe  the  allusion  to  the  three  Persons  of  the  Trinity  ; 
also  the  indirect  reference  to  the  Gos[)el  of  ,Tohn,  The 
promises  in  the  last  chapters  of  John  (and  not  in  Luke) 
and  before  John  had  put  them  in  writing,  are  referred  to 
here.  Other  evangelists  omit  them,  probably  because 
tliey  knew  these  discourses  had  been  committed  to  John. 

The.  Time.  He  closely  connects  the  gift  of  the  Spirit 
with  the  Ascension,  "  Not  many  days  iience." 

The  church  contrasted  with  the  false  expectations  of  the 
Jews.  Their  ideas  of  a  temporal  kingdom  are  revived 
though  somewhat  modified.  "Lord,  wilt  thou  at  this 
time  restore  again  tlie  kingdom  to  Israel."  They  con- 
cede His  departure  and  the  coming  of  H.  G.  and  yet 
think  He  is  to  set  up  a  temporal  kingdom.  This  mis- 
conception remained  with  them  for  some  time. 

He  replies,  (1)  Not  theirs  to  know,  the  times  or  sea- 
sons. (2)  They  should  be  zealous  only  in  the  perform- 
ance of  their  own  duties.  v.  8.  "  Ye  shall  receive 
powers,"  &c.  There  was  to  be  no  external  ritualistic 
kingdom,  but  they  themselves  w^ere  to  be  the  deposita- 
ries of  this  power. 

Commission  Renewed  to  the  Apostles.  The  H.  S.  was 
to  come  upon  them  and  they  were  to  be  His  witnesses.  The 
account  of  the  Ascension  is  closed  by  a  dramatic  stroke 
of  great  beauty.  He  was  giving  these  directions,  and, 
"  while  they  beheld,  he  was  taken  up."  He  continues 
His  reign  in  heaven,  and  acts  through  His  agencies  on 
earth,  until  the  second  coming. 

Critical  Questions.  The  statement  in  the  12th  v.  as  to 
place,  time,  and  words  employed,  does  not  conflict  with 
Lk.  24  :  50,  as  some  allege.  Even  Strauss  concedes  that 
the  two  passages  do  not  involve  a  contradiction.  (See 
Lange  in  loc.) 

Are  different  interviews  intended  in  4th  and  6th  ver- 
ses ?  The  most  natural  conclusion  is,  that  the  conversa- 
tion occurred  at  one  and  the  same  meeting.  It  is,  how- 
ever, possible,  that  Luke  may  intend  liere  a  summary  of 
Christ's  last  teaching  with  His  disciples. 

(2.)  From  Ascension  to  Pentecost,  ch.  1 :  11-26 — 10 
days.  Employment  during  the  ten  days — waiting  and  prayer. 
A  time  of  suspense — no  boldness — no  proselyting  zeal — 


10 

no  plaiiiiiiig  ;  bound  together  by  a  common  interest,  their 
single  duty  was  to  wait  on  the  Lord,  and  their  attitude 
evinced  perfect  faith  and  coiilidence  in  Christ. 

Persons  mmtio?ied.—  AposUes,  women,  and  the  brethren 
of  Jesus.  The  list  of  the  names  of  the  Apostles  appro- 
priately introduced  here.  The  church  was  (then)  a  visi- 
ble counterpart  of  the  twelve  tribes.  Women,  not  the 
women  as  in  A.  V.,  showing  that  the  church  was  not  to 
be  exclusively  of  males.  "  Miii'y,  the  mother  of  Jesus, 
and  with  his  brethren."  These  relatives  were  held  in 
special  honor  and  some  of  them  were  admitted  to  office. 
His  brethren  who  had  been  skeptical  were  probably  con- 
vinced by  his  resurrection  and  ascension,  v.  15.  Does 
the  number  120  comprise  all  the  Christians  in  Jerusalem, 
or  is  it  the  size  of  one  assembly.  It  is  uncertain,  in  any 
event  the  whole  number  was  small.  Since  the  Cruci- 
fixion, there  had  been,  doubtless,  according  to  his  pre- 
diction, a  falling  away  of  numbers  wdio  had  been  favor- 
able to  Christ.  How  reconcile  the  number  given  here 
with  the  statement  in  1  Cor.  15  :  6,  that  he  appeared  to 
above  500  brethren  at  once  ?  That  appearance  was  in 
Galilee,  and  Luke  does  not  say  that  this  included  all  the 
believers  in  Jerusalem  at  the  time,  although  that  is  the 
natural  inference. 

Place  of  Assemblage. — Some  think  a  room  in  the  Tem- 
ple, and  support  by  Lk.  24:  53,  "  they  were  continually 
in  the  temple,"  but  this  merely  states  that  they  kept  up 
the  Jewish  form  of  worship.  It  was  probably  the  upper 
room  where  the  Passover  had  been  celebrated. 

Choice  of  a  New  Apostle. — Were  the  Apostles  a  self- 
perpetuating  body,  or  was  this  an  exceptional  case  ? 
Peter's  argument :  1.  The  original  apostasy  of  Judas  had 
been  predicted.  2.  Connects  his  fate  vvitli  that  predic- 
tion. 3.  Shows  from  Scripture  the  necessit}-  of  filling 
his  place.  "  His  bishoprick  let  another  take."  Peter 
alludes  to  and  implies  an  argument  from  the  number  12. 
Bases  the  election  not  on  his  own  authority,  but  upon 
inference  from  Scriptures.  Assumes  no  superiority,  but 
acts  as  spokesman  of  the  11.  The  whole  church  was  au- 
thorized to  take  part,  which  shows  that  the  Apostles  did 
not  profess  to  be  a  self-perpetuating  body.     They   only 


11 

applied  tests  and  qualifications  laid  down  by  Christ  Him- 
self. The  selection  must  be  made  from  those  who  had 
companied  with  them  from  the  bejj^inning,  and  had  wit- 
nessed His  resurrection.  This  shows  what  Peter  consid- 
ered the  fundamental  design  of  the  office.  Why  this 
mixture  of  human  tests  and  appeal  to  Divine  Providence  ? 
If  competent  to  choose  two,  why  not  to  choose  one  ? 
What  right  had  this  assembly  to  restrict  God's  choice  to 
two  whom  they  had  previc^usly  fixed  upon  ?  The  most 
natural  supposition  is,  that  these  two  were  the  only  per- 
sons within  reach  who  possessed  the  necessary  qualifi(!a- 
tions.     (See  Alexander.) 

To  whom  was  Peter's  prayer  addressed  ?  Probably 
to  Christ,  because  of  use  of  x'jfxo^,  and  because  all  the 
Apostles  had  been  appointed  by  Him.  Also  leaves  the 
im[)ression  tliat  they  still  looked  to  Christ's  immediate 
direction,  Peter  quotes  Ps.  69:  25,  and  Ps.  109:  8  as 
applicable  to  Judas.  How  can  a  Ps.  which  contains  a 
confession  of  sin  be  considered  Messianic  ?  Here  is  an 
instance  of  generic  interpretation,  the  whole  class  of  the 
righteous  under  persecution  being  represented. 

Was  the  transaction  authorized  or  not  ?  Many  or- 
thodox interpreters,  among  them  Stier  and  Schaff,  an- 
swer in  the  negative.  The  Apostles  were  told  to  wait  for 
the  H.  S.  Before  His  descent  they  had  no  right  to  act. 
A  case  of  Peter's  rashness.  If  the  number  twelve  was 
important,  they  say,  it  leaves  no  place  for  Paul,  and  Mat- 
thias nowhere  reappears.  They  think  this  an  inspired 
record  of  a  mistake.  On  the  other  hand,  it  may  be  said 
several  others  appear  only  in  the  lists.  Paul  may  have 
taken  the  place  of  James,  or  have  been  a  supernumerary 
Apostle  to  the  Gentiles.  (1  Cor.  15:8).  It  devolved 
upon  the  church  to  recognize  the  vacancy.  Improbable 
that  Luke  writing  under  Paul's  guidance  would  record  a 
mistake  without  censure.  Church  had  always  the  guid- 
ance of  the  Spirit  although  never  3'et  fully  poured  out. 
Appointment  is  made  by  Divine  selection  and  b}'  lot. 
Peter  bases  the  action  on  Scripture.  After  the  resurrec- 
tion, the  body  of  disci[)les  were  uniformly  called  the  eleven, 
after  election  uniformly  called  the  Ticelve.  Luke  writing 
a  generation  afterward  says,  "  and  he  was  numbered  with 


12 

the  eleven  apostles,"  This  is  not  the  first  act  of  the  new 
church,  but  the  divinely  directed  last  act  of  preparation. 
Bauingarten  calls  it  the  "  final  preparation  for  the 
church." 

(3.)  Pentecost,  ch.  II.  A  Descent  of  the  Spirit. — 
III:  1-13 — We  look  for  the  essential  traits  of  an  institu- 
tion in  the  history  of  its  first  establishment;  whatever 
comes  afterwards  is  not  essential,  though  of  authority. 
The  one  salient  fact  is,  that  the  H.  S.  descended  into  the 
hearts  of  believers,  and  without  distinction  of  age,  sex, 
or  class.  Here  is  the  germ  of  all  subsequent  church 
history — the  imparting  of  a  new  life  to  the  church  to  lead 
it  to  a  higher  plane  until  perfected  at  the  second  coming. 
The  H.  S.  had  been  given  in  0.  T.  and  by  Christ,  but 
always  in  a  way  that  was  adapted  to  a  state  of  pupilai^e. 
Present  Characteristics  of  His  Outpouring.  (1.)  In  full 
measure — potentially  and  progressively — the  beginning 
of  plenary  imparting  of  H.  S.  to  church.  (2.)  Immedi- 
ately to  the  soul,  without  intervention  of  prescribed  rites. 
(3.)  To  all  men,  as  a  consequence  of  abolition  of  forms. 
Nature  and  extent  of  tlie  gift  closely  connected.  The 
design  of  gospel  forall  men  is  thegreatN".  T.  doctrine;  the 
fact  of  ]Sr.  T.  history  is  the  actual  spread  of  the  truth  in 
world.  This  event  is  coordinate  in  dignity,  and  import- 
ance with  the  Incarnation  of  the  Son  of  God.  That  was 
for  sacrifice,  this  to  unite  to  Christ ;  that,  God  becoming 
man,  this,  God  dwelling  in  man;  that  for  justification 
and  government,  this,  for  adoption,  sanctification,  and 
eternal  life.  Trinity  under  O.  T.  obscurely  revealed  ; 
now  the  H.  S.  is  set  forth  as  one  with,  but  distinct  from, 
the  Father.  This  fact  of  Pentecost,  historically  accred- 
ited, is  the  refutation  of  all  naturalistic  theories.  Like 
resurrection,  it  corroborates  the  supernatural  claims  of 
Christianity.  The  power  of  this  argument  cannot  be  ex- 
aggerated. Rationalists,  den\'  it  as  a  historical  fact  and 
found  Christianity  simply  in  Christians'  belief  in  it.  To 
this  J.  S.  Mill  attributes  our  exemption  from  idolatry. 
The  rationalistic  position  necessitates  an  a  priori  recon- 
struction of  church  history.  The  idea  that  the  risen 
Jesus  still  governs  the  church,  is  farther  carried  out  in 
the  importance  attached  to  the  time  "  was  fully  come." 


13 

The  Time — "  was  fully  come."  Christ  dwelt  on  the 
time  as  prominent  feature.  Why  on  Pentecost  ?  (1.)  A 
practical  reason.  It  was  at  Jerusalem  the  place  of  suf- 
fering. Feast  bi-ouglit  a  groat  concourse  from  all  parts 
of  the  world,  (a)  The  Ijreaking  down  of  Judaism  empha- 
sized, (b)  witnesses  secured.  Historical  attestation  of  this 
fact,  unlike  resurrection  and  ascension,  does  not  rest 
entirel}'  upon  primary  testimony  of  friends.  All  promi- 
nent cities  into  which  Paul  entered  contained  persons 
acquainted  with  these  facts,  who  miglit  liave  contradicted 
him,  when  he  preached  them.  Facts  preceded  the  Apos- 
tles and  in  many  places  they  found  churches  already 
established  by  these  witnesses.  (2.)  Pent,  emphasized 
the  source  of  this  gift — it  completed  the  idea  of  Pass. 
Pent,  reckoned  from  and  de[)endent  upon  Pass.  JSTaone 
connects  the  two  {tzsvtyjxo:;  rrj^  "  fiftieth''^  day).  Called  also 
the  Feast  of  Weeks  (Lev.  28  :  15,  16  ;  Ex.  34  :  22).  In- 
ward connection  in  events.  On  the  second  day  of  Pass, 
the  first  sheaf  of  the  cereal  harvest  was  brought  to  the 
Temple;  on  Pent,  two  loaves  of  leavened  bread.  First 
signalized  the  beginning  of  harvest,  the  second,  the  com- 
pletion of  ingathering.  So  Christ's  death  at  Pass,  repre- 
sented the  ottering  of  first  fruits,  and  the  Spirit's  descent 
at  Pent,  the  ingathering  of  the  harvest.  (3.)  Although 
Pent,  is  only  represented  as  close  of  the  harvest  in  O.  T., 
it  is  usually  conceded  that  it  is  associated  with  giving  of 
law  on  Sinai.  Lechler  disputes  this  but  (a)  all  the  other 
feasts  were  historical  memorials,  and  the  antecedent 
probability  is  that  this  was  also,  (b)  it  is  so  represented 
in  the  Talmud.  Law  was  given  on  50th  day  after  the 
exodus  (Ex.  12  :  2-18.)  That  was  the  beginning  of  a  new 
revelation.  So  Pent,  was  the  new  revelation  of  the  H. 
S.  It  is  so  argued  by  the  Apostle  in  Hebrews.  At  the 
first  Pent,  the  people  were  driven  away  from  the  moun- 
tain by  fear — necessity  of  mediation — imperfect  commu- 
nion, now  they  are  filled  with  joy,  praise — immediate 
union — no  external  mediation — the  results  of  the  com- 
pleted atonement.  The  first  Pent,  followed  Pass,  when 
lamb  was  ottered,  last  Pent,  followed  Pass,  when  Christ 
was  ottered.  (4.)  Historically  it  was  "  the  fullness  of 
time."     Whole   world   prepared,  Jewish    and    heathen. 


14 

Apostles  prepared  by  disappointment — were  humbled — 
reduced  to  waitina; — a  period  of  almost  absolute  suspense 
of  faith.  The  narrative  shows  that  the  Apostles  were  not 
expecting  descent  of  H.  S.  on  that  day  more  than  any 
other  day.  It  was  the  third  hour  of  the  day,  says  Peter, 
Such  times  are  never  known  beforehand — so  will  it  be  at 
the  second  coming.  True  preparation  is  absolute  faith, 
prayer,  and  labor.  Day  of  the  week — two  opinions  ; 
Saturday  or  Sunday?  Depends  upon  what  was  date  of 
the  crucifixion.  If  as  according  to  Bleek,  Schatf,  and 
others,  it  was  on  Friday,  14th  Nisan,  the  weeks  being 
computed  from  the  second  day,  Saturday,  the  15th,  the 
fiftieth  day  (Pent.)  would  fall  on  Sunday — the  Christian 
Sabbath.  If  we  follow  Wieseler,  Robinson  and  the 
chronol.  of  The  Gospel  History  of  Dr.  C.  W.  H.,  John 
harmonizes  with  Synoptists,  crucifixion  was  on  Friday  the 
15th  jSTisan  (i.  e.,  second  day  offcast)  and  the  fiftieth  day 
would  fall  on  Saturday — the  Jewish  Sabbath.  It  must 
be  regarded  as  an  open  question.  It  would  seem  as 
appropriate  to  have  this  event  mark  the  end  of  the  0. 
D.  as  the  beginning  the  N.  D. 

Place  of  Assemblage.  Some  think  in  an  apartment  of 
the  Temple.  Thus  the  new  church  was  formed  in  the 
bosom  of  the  old — and  this  explains  great  concourse. 
But  the  people  may  have  been  attracted  by  the  noise  of 
the  tongues,  and  the  term,  o«oc,  not  easil}^'  referred  to  an 
apartment  of  the  temple.     Probably  "the  upper  room." 

Miraculous  accompaniments.  1.  "  Sound  from  heaven 
as  of  a  rushing  mighty  wind."  Sound  filled  the  house — 
not  said  to  have  been  the  wind.  "  From  heaven  " — ref- 
erence to  Christ's  ascension  into  heaven.  Wind  is  a 
common  symbol  of  the  H.  S.  2.  Visible  signs — tongues 
"as  of  fire."  Not  of  fire — reference  is  to  the  appearance. 
Not  cloven,  but  disirihuted  to  each.  Fire  a  double  symbol ; 
(a)  of  punishment,  {h)  of  purification.  Latter  most  com- 
mon. Tongue — organ  of  expression  fi)r  the  soul.  Indi- 
cates (a)  that  whole  inward  man  was  cleansed,  (6)  pre- 
pared also  to  spread  the  knowledge  to  others.  The  very 
form  of  the  gift  shows  that  it  was  to  be  given  to  others. 
The  H.  G.  descended  upon  Christ  in  the  form  of  a  dove, 
emblemizing  His  purity.     He  descended  upon  the  church 


15 

in  the  form  of  tono:iies  of  tire,  sii^nityiiig  consecration 
and  cornmisaion.  Here  is  a  new  association  with  Mt. 
Sinai— same  elements  are  employed  in  different  ways. 
3.  Began  to  speak  with  other  tongues.  Great  dispute  as 
to  what  this  means.  Christ  promised  that  they  should 
"speak  with  new  tongues."  Mk.  16  :  17.  Paul  speaks 
of  "kinds  of  tongues  "  (1  Cor.  12:  10.)  First  interpret- 
ers think  that  the  language  in  Acts  clearly  implies  for- 
eign languages;  some  that  it  refers  to  ecstatic  utterances. 
It  was  an  assemblage  largely  of  foreigners,  and  the  former 
view  will  alone  explain  their  wonder.  Av^aed  per  cojitra 
(1  Cor.  14)  that  Paul  seems  to  imply  that  the  speaker  did 
not  understand  his  own  words.  lie  contrasts  praying  in 
an  unknown  tongue  and  praying  with  the  understanding. 
There  are  two  general  questions  :  I.  What  was  the  nature 
of  the  gift  of  tongues  ?  and  II.  How  harmonize  Luke  and 
Paul  ?     Two  general  theories  as  to  the  former  question. 

1,  1.  ISTeander,  Meyer,  Schaff,  and  a  large  number  of  in- 
terpreters, think  it  consisted  of  ecstatic  or  elevated  dis- 
course in  praise  of  God.  Tongue  was  the  organ  of  the 
Spirit  and  not  of  individual.  Words  devotional,  not  for 
instruction.  (Neander's  Planting  and  Training  of  the 
Church,  p.  13  ;  Schaff's  Ap.  Hist.  p.  199  tf.)  They  main- 
tain (1.)  that  Paul  makes  no  mention  of  foreign  languages 
being  introduced  at  Corinth.  If  we  had  1  Cor.  alone 
we  would  never  form  the  idea  of  there  being  foreign 
tongues.  (2.)  Paul  teaches  that  the  understanding  of  the 
speaker  was  not  engaged.  (3.)  The  people  could  not 
understand  them  at  Pentecost — accused  them  of  raving. 
(4.)  What  was  uttered  was  addressed  to  God  and  not  to 
man.     Think  that  Pett^*  interpreted  to  them  in  Greek. 

2.  The    other    theory intelligible    utterances    in 

tongues  before  uid^nown.  (1.)  The  plain  exegesis  of 
Luke's  language  implies  this.  (2.)  The  character  of  the 
gift  as  miraculous  could  thus  only  be  recognized  by  the 
people.  This  accounts  for  the  impression  made  upon  the 
multitude,  that  they  were  drunken,  but  as  each  listened, 
he  could  distinguish  his  own  language. 

II.  How  harmonize  with  Paul  (1  Cor.  14)  ?  It  does 
not  accord  with  the  terms  used  to  say  that  it  was  a  mira- 
cle in   the   minds  of  the  hearers  and   not  of  speakers. 


16 

Schaft'  adheres  to  fair  exegesis — thinks  that  a  change 
took  place  in  the  character  of  the  gift.  Speaking  in  for- 
eign tongues  merely  incidental  to  Pent,  and  does  not  re- 
appear in  after  accounts.  Neander  and  Me^^er  think  that 
Luke  incorporated  a  myth  into  his  history.  Old  explana- 
tion {vide  Hodge  on  Cor.)  the  gift  was  always  that  of 
speaking  in  foreign  languages.  Whole  argument — in 
passage  in  Cor.  confirms  this  view.  Paul  makes  thecon- 
trast  between  praying  in  an  unknown  tongue,  and  pray- 
ing so  as  to  be  understood. 

Design  of  miraculous  accompaniments.  1.  To  attest 
His  presence.  Every  new  stage  of  revelation  accredited 
by  a  miracle.  When  a  revelation  is  well  established 
miracles  cease.  They  are  tj'pical  oftrutli — outward  mani- 
festations of  an  inward  gift.  Publicity  verj'  great. 
Skeptics  of  the  miraculous  period  do  not  denj'  them. 
They  were  also  experienced  hy  many.  Difference  between 
attestation  when  it  is  not  only  perceived  by  the  senses, 
but  also  attested  by  the  consciousness.  Here  is  the  diffi- 
culty of  explaining  to  an  unregenerate  man  the  experi- 
ences of  regeneration.  From  the  outset  it  was  impossi- 
ble for  those  experiencing  these  thing?  to  doubt  them. 
The  Apostolic  age  was  characterized  by  intensity  of  con- 
viction. 2.  It  was  also  highly  symbolical  of  gifts  of 
H.  S. — signified  both  the  completeness  of  the  change 
wrought,  and  universality  of  gifts.  The  flame  was  not 
only  now  in  Shekinah,  but  descended  upon  every  believer. 
New  revelation  not  confined  to  one  language,  but  given 
to  all.  Gift  of  tongues  wa-^  counterpart  of  confusion  at 
Babel.  One  reverse  of  the  other.  Prefigures  final  union 
of  all  the  elect  in  Christ.  Hence  enumeration  of  nations 
represented,  the  whole  empire  from  East  to  West— most 
of  the  then  known  tongues,  v,  5,  not  only  resident  for- 
eigners, xarocxouvzez  but  v.  9-10  —  transient  dwellers — 
iTTidrjfxdvrec;  i.  e.  strangers.  3,  Practical  design.  First 
impression  that  the  design  was  to  enable  the  Apostles  to 
communicate  the  truth  to  men  of  different  languages. 
This  a  subordinate  consideration.  Unnecessary,  because 
Greek  language  almost  universally  spoken  from  India  to 
Rome.  There  strangers  were  actually  using  it.  No 
trace  of  the  use  of  this  gift  by  the  Apostles  subsequently. 


17 

Next  the  case  of  Cornelius  (Acts  10)  but  the  gift  was 
imparted  after  Peter's  discourse  in  Greek.  iSo.  Paul 
(Acts  19  :  6)  instructs  John's  disciples  before  gift  conies 
upon  them.  So  in  Corinth  the  gift  not  necessary  for 
communication.  At  Lystra  (Acts  14  :  11)  Paul  and  Bar- 
nabas evidentlj'  did  not  understand  "  the  s|)eech  of  Ly- 
caonia."     No  evidence  that  the  gift  was  [>ermanent. 

Apostolic  Period  one  of  miracles.  There  is  difficulty 
in  getting  the  real  historical  conception  of  the  times.  It 
was  one  of  the  powers  of  the  age,  and  unless  we  realize 
this,  we  cannot  read  the  history  aright.  Design  1.  To 
attest  new  revelation.  2  Practical  design  to  do  good. 
Also  cases  of  judgment,  Ananias  and  iSapphira.  Latter 
rare.  3.  To  arouse  attention  and  give  confidence  both 
to  the  world  and  believers.  Christianity  was  introduced 
into  the  world  against  will  of  the  pet)ple.  Had  to  con- 
tend with  ordinary  forces  and  [>rejudices  of  society. 
Remarkable  success  of  the  church  was  due  to  the  accom- 
paniment of  miracles  and  to  the  peculiar  state  of  society 
at  that  time.  These  facts  not  considered  by  those  who 
decry  missionary  eitbrt  now.  Such  dwell  on  the  unified 
eflbrt  of  that  period.  Not  too  much  to  say  that  unity 
was  then  due  to  a  state  of  infancy  and  imperfect  devel- 
opment, and  not  entirely  to  greater  purity  of  the  clinrch. 
4.  Teaching  design — contrasted  with  Christ's  miracles. 
Our  Lord's  were  largely  to  exliibit  His  divine  power — 
traversed  all  the  spheres  in  which  power  was  manifested. 
The  Apostles'  miracles  were  confined  to  healing  sick  and 
casting  out  devils.  Christ  wrought  immediately.  Apos- 
tles through  Ilim.  In  Apostolic  I'eriod  gifts  of  teaching 
were  most  prominent.  5.  To  facilitate  transfer  from 
Ritual  to  S[iiritual  system.  Neander  dwells  upon  this. 
Miracles  were  the  evidence  that  the  prescriptive  power 
of  Judaism  was  done  away,  and  that  the  H.  S.  is  now 
given  immediately,  and  to  all.  We  see  something  of  the 
[lower  of  forms  even  with  us,  what  must  liave  been  their 
power  then,  when  the  Jews  could  show  Divine  authority  for 
them  ?  Hence  necessity  of  these  gifts  to  authenticate  a 
change,  and  in  order  that  they  might  realize  the  descent 
of  the  H.  S.  without  distinction  upon  all,  as  Joel  had 
prophesied,  and   the    universal   priesthood   of  believers. 


18 

This  design  prored  (1)  from  the  fact  that  tlie  gift  was  not 
confine:!  to  Apostles,  or  cointnunicated  hy  them.  Acts  4. 
All  wei'e  filled  with  H.  G.  This  term  always  refers  to 
external  gifts — yapiaiiaza  and  nothing  else.  Stephen, 
Acts  6:5.  Philip,  Acts  8:17.  {Vide  Acts  10:44; 
19  :  6)  Agabus — four  daughters  of  Philip.  1  Cor.  12-14 
proves  that  members  of  churches  had  the  gifts,  and  had 
choice  among  them.  (2)  In  directions  given  bv  Paul 
1  Cor.,  RomT  12:  6,  IThess.  5:  19.  Gifts  were  exer- 
cised by  so  many  that  these  directions  were  given  to 
preserve  order  in  the  churches.  Danger  of  spurious  imi- 
tation. (3)  Ordinary  and  extraordinary  gifts  of  H.  S. 
classed  together  by  Luke.  This  shows  that  the  two 
usually  went  together.  Two  things  follow  :  1.  Miracu- 
lous element  is  historical.  2.  Miracles  are  not  to  be 
looked  for  later.  They  only  come  as  evidence  of  new 
revelations.  When  did  miracles  cease?  Of  what  value 
is  the  evidence  for  their  existence  in  sub-Apostolic  Age? 
Not  until  after  Origen  in  3d  century,  are  they  spoken  of 
as  past.  Justin  Martyr  speaks  of  many  Christians  heal- 
ing those  possessed  of  evil  spirits.  Irenseus  speaks  of 
many  brethren  then  living  who  "  possessed  gifts  of 
prophecy  and  spoke  in  thedi\ers  languages  by  the  Spirit." 
Origen  vs.  Celsus  appeals  to  what  he  had  seen  as  an  eye- 
witness. Celsus  accounts  for  the  growth  of  Christianity 
by  the  credulity  of  the  people.  Tertullian  also  refers  to 
them.  Some  are  slow  to  admit  their  existence  after  the 
specific  design  had  ceased.  They  urge  1.  The  meager- 
ness  of  the  testimony — a  few  isolated  passages.  Miracles 
not  I'ule  in  sub- Apostolic  Age,  but  exception.  2.  These 
Fathers  may  have  been  themselves  mistaken.  Many  edu- 
cated Roman  Catholics  believe  in  miracles  of  saints. 
Many  in  Ap.  Age,  when  true  and  false  might  have  been 
contrasted,  were  deceived.  In  every  age  there  is  a  class 
of  occult  facts  and  phenomena  which  are  on  the  verge  of 
thenatural  and  supernatural.  Irvingism  and  the  miracles 
of  Xavier  believed  by  many.  This  class  of  facts  though 
inexplicable,  are  not  necessarily  supernntural.  Fathers 
may  have  mistaken  for  genuine  miracles  cases  of  natural 
cure.  3.  The  Ap.  Age  was  very  long — John  lived  to  the 
end  of  the  centur3^     Some  of  his  converts  who  possessed 


19 

git't8  may  liHVC -survived,  and  coutiiuied  use  of  tht'iii  for 
50  or  60  years. 

We  must  remember  tliat  these  Fathers  are  in  the 
very  forefront  as  witnesses  for  our  canon.  Probably  true 
conception  is  that  of  Neander  in  his  Chnr(;h  History, — 
"  a  series  of  gradual  and  insensible  changes."  Matiy 
more  miracles  in  first  part  of  Ap.  Age  tlian  in  latter. 
We  must  hold  fast  tlie  fact  that  Ap.  Age  was  a  mi- 
raculous one  — they  were  then  needed  for  attestation. 
After  all,  the  question  of  their  continuance  is  reduced  to 
the  dimensions  of  historical  and  antiquarian  interest. 

Gifts  enumerated ;  1  Cor.  12-14.  Most  complete  record 
by  Paul  liimself.  But  even  here  the  description  is  only 
incidental.  His  object  was  not  to  describe  them,  but  to 
correct  disorder  in  use  of  them.  All  classes  shared  them, 
giving  rise  to  some  confusion,  and  ostentatious  display, 
calling  for  his  Apostolic  directions.  We  learn  from 
Paul  as  to  their  nature:  1.  That  they  were  true  gifts — 
under  the  free  determination  and  control  of  the  will  of 
those  receiving  th/em.  They  were  therefore  responsible 
for  the  proper  e.xercise  of  them.  This  refutes  all  those 
who  regard  the  Corinthian  piienomena  as  enthusiasm. 
2.  Not  for  individual  good,  but  for  the  advancement 
of  the  church.  They  were  of  different  grades — so  given 
as  to  make  them  mutually  dependent.  3.  By  conse- 
quence their  use  v.-as  to  be  governed  by  the  rule  of  Chris- 
tian love.  4.  Measured  by  this  standard,  the  gift  of  in- 
struction was  to  be  preferred  to  gift  of  tongues.  5. 
While  he  believed  the  gifts  were  miraculous,  some  were 
more  evidently  so  than  others.  Some  so  closely  con- 
nected with  ordinar}'  natural  endowments  as  to  seem 
only  a  strengthenimr  of  latter — an  extension  of  their 
knowledge  of  God's  providence  of  their  capacity  for 
investigation  and  discernment  of  good  and  evil.  (Lechler). 
In  all  these,  Paul  teaches  there  is  an  unusual  divine  energy 
guiding  and  strengthening  these  gifts.  1  Cor.  12  :  8-10 
nine  of  these  gifts  are  enumerated,  Numerous  attempts 
have  been  made  to  classify  them.  Meyer's  classification 
based  on  recurrence  of  kzipwdk  :  1.  Intellectual,  (wis- 
dom and  knowledge.)  2.  Faith  and  its  effects  (healing, 
miracles,  prophecy,  discerning   of  spirits.)     3.  Tongues, 


20 

(speaking  and  interpreting.)  This  is  a  defective  classifi- 
cation because  faitii  may  as  well  come  under  1st,  and 
prophecy  and  discernment  of  spirits  should  not  be  sub- 
ordinate to  faith.     Distinctions  clear  in  the  chap,  itself: 

1.  Miracles.  2.  Teaching.  3.  Tongues.  Faith  belongs 
to  all  alike.  Difference  between  XoyoQ  aofio.^  and  Xoyoi; 
Yvioaeco<:t  Neander  makes  the  diflference  between  intel- 
lect and  prophetic  teaching.  Meyer  makes  a6(pca  intui- 
tive knowledge,  and  yvwac^  logical  or  speculative  knowl- 
edge. Hodge  takes  wisdom  {a6(fco.),  io  be  the  gospel,  the 
whole  system  of  revealed  truth,  and  [■fvcoac(;)  knowledge 
as  the  gift  which  belonged  to  teachers.  Gift  of  faith. 
Neander  :  "The  practical  power  of  the  will  animated 
bv  faith."  Hodge  :  "  A  higher  measure  of  the  ordinary 
grace  of  faith."  (Heb.  ll":  33-40).  Gift  of  healing? 
Christ's  promise,  Mk.  16  :  18,  perhaps  referred  to  in  Jas. 
5  :  14,  15.  Most  important  class  of  Apostolic  miracles. 
No  actual  record  of  miracles  by  any  but  Apostles,  except 
in  case  of  Stephen  and  Philip.  Gifts  of  prophecy  ? 
Speaking  to  another  for  God  by  insjtiration.  The  idea 
of  revealing  the  future  is  involved  in  this,  though  sub- 
ordinately.  Fundamental  meaning  same  in  O.  and  N.  T. 
Bestowed  on  others  than  Apostles,  e.  g.  Agabus.  Diffi- 
cult and  important  to  distinguish  between  gifts  of 
prophecy  and  Apostolic  inspiration.  Former  inferior  to 
latter.     1.  For   a  time   only  and   for  a  specific  purpose. 

2.  They  differed  in  fullness.  Prophecy  directed  to  the 
enforcement  of  a  particular  revelation,  fact,  or  truth. 
Apostolic  inspiration  both  constant  and  general.  Dif- 
fered from  teaching  in  that  latter  did  not  imply  inspira- 
tion. Led  to  imitation — damsel  at  Philippi,  and  7  sons 
of  Sceva  at  Ephesus  (Acts  19).  These  spurious  cases 
required  a  gift  of  discernment. 

The  Rationalists  ridicule  this  coloring  of  the  Apos- 
tolic Period.  The  evident  meaning  of  the  sacred  his- 
torian that  these  gifts  were  common  through  all  the 
churches  is  to  them  a  refutation  of  the  credibility  of  the 
account.  Their  fundamental  position  is  that  the  super- 
natural element  is  unhistorical.  Hence  they  reject  the 
Gospels  and  the  Acts.  Remand  historical  books  to  a 
later  day,  when  miracles  were  commonly  believed  by  the 


21 

ciiurch.  They  claim  that  the  author  of  Acts  is  unknown 
to  ns,  hence  his  testimony  is  of  no  value  They  reject 
all  K  T.  hut  4  epistles  of  Paul,  1  and  2  Cor.,  Gal.  and 
Rom.,  except  last  two  chapters.  Skej)tics  admit  that 
Paul  himself  helieved  in  and  preached  miracles,  especially 
those  of  Resurrection  and  Ascension,  that  he  helieved 
that  he  had  the  j/ift  himself.  What  shall  they  (h)  with 
the  testimony  of  one  whom  they  profess  so  much  to  revere, 
and  who  was  an  eyewitness?  They  affirm  that  there  is 
no  instance  where  I*aul  claims  to  have  performed  a  mira- 
cle himself  This  assertion  made  hy  Rationalists  in  Ger- 
many and  by  author  of  "Supernatural  Religion."  An- 
swered by  VV'estcott  and  (Ellicott?).  They  quote  the  fol- 
lowins;  passages  where  Paul  claims  the  pcnver  of  working 
miracles:  2  Cor.  12:  12;  Gal.  3:5;  and  Rom.  15;   19. 

The  author  of  "  Supernatural  Religion  "  replies  that 
after  all  these  do  not  come  within  meaning  of  liis  remark. 
There  is  no  historical  instance  referred  to.  Claims  that 
these  general  statements  of  Paul  do  not  have  force  of  a 
definite  case.  Is  this  so?  Would  the  claim  to  have 
worked  a  [larticular  miracle  have  the  force  of  this  gen- 
eral assertion  of  a  power  everywhere  conceded  to  him  ? 

But  what  does  Paul  actually  say,  leaving  out  Rom. 
15:  19,  which  these  critics  reject?  Gal.  3:  5.  Here 
skeptics  say  that  the  translation,  "worketh  miracles  among 
you,"  is  inaccurate.  They  render  ku  6ficu,  "m  you,"  not 
"■among you.'"  But  duud/jisi^  remains,  and  unbiased  critics 
(Meyer)  say  that  it  applies  not  only  to  the  power  of  the 
H.  S.  but  metonymically,  to  tlie  effect  produced.  Skeptics 
say  never  means  this,  and  that  there  no  ground  for  mak- 
ing any  distinction  here  between  the  ordinary  spiritual 
powers  and  miraculous  power  given  by  H.  S. 

2  Cor.  12:  12.  How  can  these  "signs  of  an  Apostle," 
say  skeptics,  refer  to  mira(;les  if  wrought  "  in  all 
patience  ?"  Tlie  most  natural  explanation  is  that  he  refers 
to  his  patient  waiting  for  the  effect  of  the  faith  produced 
by  his  miracles.  The3'  argue  that  Paul  refers  to  y^aoiaixaTa, 
and  not  to  miracles  wrought  by  himself.  His  descrip- 
tions are  to  be  confined  to  -^aoiaiiaza.  Is  there  anything 
miraculous  in  them,  or  are  they  simply  natural  gifts? 
They  say  that  in  his  actual  descriptions  he  betrays  that 


22 

he  knows  of  nothing  bat  natural  endowments.  By  his 
expressions  "  word  of  wisdom  "  and  "  word  of  knowl- 
edge" they  maintain  that  he  refers  only  to  the  Gospel. 

As  to  gifts  of  healing  they  admit  that  men  were  cnred, 
but  think  that  Paul  simply  ascribed  to  miraculous  agency, 
cures  which  were  effected  by  natural  means.  Tlieir  argu- 
mentum  ad  hominem  is,  if  P;iul  had  the  power,  why  did  he 
not  heal  himself,  Timothy,  Epaphroditus  and  others  for 
whom  he  prayed.  If  he  did  claim  this  power,  it  was  only 
the  pious  imagination  of  the  Apostle  which  referred  every- 
thing good  in  man  to  the  supernatural.  Inconsistencies  in 
their  position.  1.  Paul,  they  confess,  believed  in  his  power 
to  work  miracles,  but  when  they  come  to  exegesis  they 
reduce  everything  to  ya(naiiaxa.  2.  They  conceive  of 
Paul  as  an  enthusiast,  dreamer,  believer  in  supernatural, 
and  as  not  able  to  distinguish  between  fact  and  fancy, 
and  yet  after  all  he  is  the  practical  worker  and  logician 
of  Christianity,  and  but  for  him  the  life  and  death  of 
Christ  would  have  been  swallowed  up  in  Judaism.  This 
is  analogous  to  their  argument  about  Christ,  and  fur- 
nishes us  with  an  impossible  conception. 

But  we  need  not  confine  ourselves  to  their  ground. 
This  separation  of  Books  of  Paul  from  Historical  Books 
is  unwarranted.  If  true,  we  have  all  of  them  to  interpret 
Paul's  use  oi  buvafxztz.  Two  things  to  be  noticed;  (1) 
The  word  buva.p.ztc,  is  joined  with  rEpaxo.  and  aqp.zia^  and 
(2)  it  is  used  in  the  plural,  powers ;  and  being  combined 
with  signs  and  wonders  there  is  no  reason  to  doubt  that 
he  refers  to  external  eifects.  All  the  best  exegetes  decide 
for  this  wide  meaning. 

B.  Peter's  Sermon.  (Chap.  II :  14-41.) — After  the  de- 
scription of  the  descent  of  the  H.  S.  we  have  the  actual 
founding  of  the  church.  We  have  here  the  first  sermon, 
first  increase,  first  baptism — elements  of  all  subsequent 
church  work.  When  the  multitude  were  attracted  by 
the  noise,  Peter  stood  up  and  explained.  There  were 
three  points  on  which  the  audience  needed  instruction. 
Christians  did  not  separate  from  the  temple,  yet  claimed 
something  new  and  additional,  and  substantiated  it  by 
external  manifestations  of  power.  Jews  knew  that  noth- 
ing was  true  which   contradicted  the  old  revelation,  and 


23 

oti  their  face  tliese  movements  seemed  so  to  contradict  it. 
Thev  must  be  satisfied  tliat  their  own  rehgion  in  its  na- 
ture contemphited  this  extension. 

He  shows:  1.  That  the  new  order  was  com[)!etion  of 
the  old.  Peter  appeals  to  Joel — 2:  28.  The  application 
in  this  and  many  other  places  in  N.  T.  is  our  guide  in  inter- 
preting O.  T.  propliecy.  The  difficulty  here  is,  that  he 
groups  in  a  single  picture  things  which  history  shows 
were  separated  by  a  long  time.  The  interval  is  ignored 
in  the  propliecy.  i*eterdid  not  comprehend  the  relation 
of  these  events  in  time.  The  dela}'  to  liim  and  to  early- 
church  was  a  surprise.  2.  That  the  H.  S.  was  to  be  given 
to  all  men.  All  distinctions  of  classes  done  away.  "Who- 
soever shall  call  upon  the  name  of  the  Lord."  3.  That 
Jesus  of  Nazareth  was  the  Messiali,  whose  coming  ushered 
in  the  Spirit.  Peter  proves  (a)  by  miracles  of  Chrint,  and 
(b)  by  His  resurrection.  Resurrection  the  turning  point 
of  the  whole.  Mass  of  the  Jews  did  not  know  it  or  be- 
lieve it.  Hore  again  is  illustrated  the  office  of  the 
Apostles  as  witnesses  of  resurrection.  To  Jewish  audi- 
ence he  proves  it  from  Scripture,  and  not  simplj'  by  tes- 
timony. Cites  Ps.  16:  8-11.  Exegesis  here  difficult. 
This  Ps.  seems  to  refer  to  inward  experiejice  of  writer, 
but  Peter  argued  that  David's  flesh  did  see  corruption.  Old 
interpretation  is  that  refers  exclusively  to  Christ.  Others 
insist  on  its  plain  meaning.  David  is  rejoicing  over  his 
enemies.  Add  to  this  that  othei-  Messianic  Ps.  contain 
confessions  of  sin  and  weakness.  By  tjipieal  or  generic 
method,  the  original  reference  to  David  may  be  pre- 
served. The  Ps.  also  proves  His  Messiahship.  David 
was  a  proptiet,  saj-s  Peter,  and  directly  predicted  that 
God  would  raise  up  Christ.  His  exaltation  predicted 
also  in  Ps.  110.  Next  he  argues  that  Apostles  were  wit- 
nesses of  resurrection,  (v.  34).  1.  Notice  credibilit}-  of 
these  witnesses.  He  makes  these  assertions  in  the  pres- 
ence of  enemies  as  well  as  friends.  Contained  necessa- 
rily a  challenge  to  Jews.  So  many  knew  the  facts  that 
deceit  was  impossible.  But  even  according  to  the  critics 
the  Apostles  were  incapable  of  such  deceit.  2.  Notice 
the  rhetorical  power  of  the  sermon.  He  chooses  those 
passages  which  bring  out  the  religious  responsibility  of  the 


24 

Jews,  and  set  forth  penalties  affixed  to  unbelief  in  the 
Messiah.  3.  Notice  chancre  prodnce'l  by  inspiration  in 
Peter's  bearing.  In  the  Gospels  he  is  rash,  vacillating, 
overbold,  and  his  very  last  question  showed  his  miscon- 
ception of  Christ's  kingdom.  Now  he  shows  profound 
insight  into  the  Scriptures  and  wonderful  undei'standing 
of  Christ's  death  and  resurrection.  He  resumes  his  fore- 
most place,  3'et  the  other  Apostles  are  coordinate  with 
him  in  distinction  from  multitude.  He  is  associated  with 
the  Eleven. 

Doctrine  of  Peter's  Discourse. — It  is  natural  for  us  to 
interpret  every  part  of  the  Bible  by  our  idea  of  the  whole 
developed  scheme  of  truth — to  interpret  Christ's  dis- 
courses by  Paul's  epistles,  forgetting  that  prior  to  the 
resurrection  the  Apostles  were  only  Jews  in  process  of 
instruction.  After  this  crisis  they  had  a  fuller  knowl- 
edge. Not  always  easy  to  distinguish  between  what  they 
realized  at  first  and  what  they  learned  better  later.  We 
have  no  right  to  ascribe  to  Peter  or  any  of  them,  a  more 
developed  view  at  any  time  than  we  have  historical 
ground  for  so  doing.  Biblical  Theologi/  investigates  N.  T. 
by  historical  periods,  and  traces  the  development  of  one 
period  out  of  another.  1.  The  statement  in  the  Gospels. 
2.  As  held  by  primitive  church  prior  to  !St.  Paul.  3.  The 
progress  of  Paul's  delivery  of  doctrine.  4.  Its  completed 
form  in  John's  works.  Within  these  i)eriods  it  follows 
main  topics  of  Systematic  Theology  ;  Christ's  doctrine  of 
sin,  its  relation  to  the  law,  the  question  of  salvation,  per- 
son and  work  of  the  Redeemer,  etc.,  eliminating  every- 
thing that  is  not  in  Christ's  own  words,  distinguishing 
between  the  point  of  view  of  Synoptists  and  John. 
Passing  on,  we  observe  the  particular  truths  before  Peter 
and  the  primitive  church  in  the  Acts,  and  we  compare 
discourses  with  the  epistles  and  with  early  teachings  of 
James,  who  remained  in  Jerusalem,  and  whose  concep- 
tion was  ethical  not  doctrinal — also  with  Mark  among 
the  gospels  and  Jude.  The  same  process  is  to  be  fol- 
lowed with  Paul,  Luke,  and  John.  This  department  is 
closely  related  to  Isagogics  and  Exegesis.  It  takes  for 
granted  that  the  authorship,  canonicity,  date  and  his- 
torical position  is  fixed  before  it  can  investigate.     It  is 


25 

the  last  result  of  true  exegesis  In  this  course  we  are 
forced  to  follow  cliroiiologieal  order  rather  than  the 
periods.  Can  ot)ly  give  the  main  illustrations  of  pro- 
gress in  doctrine  in  N".  T.  period. 

What  do  we  mean  b\'  development  of  doctrine,  and 
iiow  does  it  consist  with  inspiratitMi  of  the  Apostles? 
There  are  two  extreme  ways  of  looking  at  it.  1.  Take 
[>oint  of  view  of  the  catechism,  ((^ues.  2.)  Proof  texts 
are  selected  from  any  part  of  the  Bible  overlooking  tlie 
proportion  or  historical  relation.  It  is  too  common  to 
take  for  grunted  tlie  fullness  of  creed  before  the  coming 
of  Paul's  doctrinal  teacliiug,  and  which  the  church  her- 
self did  not  get  out  of  Paul's  writings  for  centuries,  2. 
The  Rationalistic  position.  Here  all  doctrines  are  viewed 
as  the  natural  products  of  the  religious  consciousnesses  of 
men,  developed  under  the  influence  of  external  circum- 
stances. What  did  the  early  church  believe?  Skeptics 
regard  the  Gospels  as  not  authentic,  especially  the  Gospel 
of  Jolin — Acts  unauthentic,  and  they  eliniinate  from  the 
Synoptists  every  dogmatic  statement  and  the  supernatural 
element,  leaving  only  the  ethical  or  moral  element  of 
Christ's  teaching.  This  leaves  scarcely  any  residuum  of 
belief  in  the  supernatural  on  part  of  early  church, 
altliough  these  speeches  contain  more  theology  than 
skeptics  acknowledge.  They  reduce  primitive  church 
very  much  to  level  of  Judaism — liad  nothing  beyond,  but 
that  Christ  was  the  Messiah.  Renan  says  they  had  no 
speculative  theology,  only  believed  Jesus  was  Son  of 
God.  Jesus  had  very  wisely  kept  from  His  disciples 
everything  metapliysical.  The  author  of  "  Supernatural 
Religion  "  sa^'s  that  Christianity  did  not  ditt'er  from 
Mosaism  except  in  single  fact  that  they  believed  Jesus 
was  Messiah,  and  this  lested  on  the  Apostles'  declarations 
as  to  resurrection.  They  continued  to  call  themselves 
Jews  and  practiced  Jewish  rites  till  Paul  came.  He  began 
to  teach  from  the  universality  of  sin  the  application  of 
the  Gospel  to  the  Gentiles.  Paul  is  regarded  as  founder 
of  Christian  docti-ine  and  this  author  even  asserts  that 
figure  of  Paul  overshadows  the  figure  of  Christ,  and  that 
it  is  only  by  retracing  our  steps  that  we  arrive  at  facts 
and    principles    at    basis    of  Christianity.       Christianity 


26 

starts  with  the  common  Jewish  ideas.  Under  Paul's 
teaching  the  religious  consciousness  goes  on  to  develop 
new  truth  until  it  reaches  the  theology  of  St.  John. 
Thus  tliey  reduce  the  developmentof  doctrine  within  the 
N.  T.  to  the  same  level  with  the  apprehension  and  state- 
ment of  doctrine  subsequent!}-.  Development  within 
and  without  the  church  has  carried  us  to  higher  and 
purer  views  than  Paul  himself  had,  and  ultimately  all 
dogma  will  disappear  and  only  the  morality  of  the  N.  T. 
remain. 

They  la}'  down  two  canons  of  criticism.  1.  Any  book 
which  asserts  the  divinity  of  Christ  cannot  be  earlier  than 
the  '2nd  century.  The  actual  recognition  of  that  doctrine 
was  not  made  till  then.  Consequently  Gospel  of  John 
is  placed  in  last  part  of  2nd  century.  2.  Those  books 
are  genuine  which  support  one  side  or  other  of  the  doc- 
trinal conflict  between  Peter  and  Paul.  There  were  two 
great  parties  in  the  church  :  (1)  The  Jewish  or  Petrine 
party,  holding  that  Gentiles  could  become  Christians  only 
by  becoming  Jews.  (2)  The  Pauline  or  Broad  cliurch 
part3%  which  obliterates  the  distinction  between  Jew  and 
Gentile.  Only  the  books  which  represent  these  two 
extremes  are  genuine.  On  the  one  side  the  4  letters  of 
Paul  :  Gnl.,  Rom.,  1  and  2  Cor.  (or  as  some  say,  7,)  are 
genuine,  for  in  them  Paul  charges  Peter  with  teaching 
what  is  not  the  true  Gospel.  On  the  other  side  books  of 
Jewish  cast  of  thought  are  genuine,  e.  g.,  Revelation, 
because  it  evidently  emanated  from  a  Jewish  minded 
man.  Fault  is  found  with  the  lapsed  churches  because 
of  their  holding  doctrine  of  St.  Paul.  All  books  not 
coming  within  these  two  canons,  grew  out  of  a  later 
attempt  to  reconcile  the  parties.  After  the  rise  of  the 
Gnostics,  an  attempt  was  made  to  unify  and  bring 
together  these  conflicting  views  in  the  epistles  to  the  Eph. 
and  Col.,  and  especially  in  rewriting  the  history.  The 
Gospels  and  Acts  are  the  outgrowth  of  the  irenic  period. 
It  was  necessary  to  make  the  life  of  Christ  present  both  as- 
pects of  the  truth,  and  to  show  that  He  had  taught  all  the 
Christian  doctrine  from  the  beginning.  In  book  of  Acts 
Peter  is  represented  by  his  speeches  and  conversion  of 
Cornelius,  as  preparing  the  way  for  Paul.     Peter's  dis- 


27 

courses  are  made  to  teach  Pauline  doctrine.  And  F*anl 
is  represented  as  having  circumcised  Timothy,  and  as 
having  in  other  points  conformed  to  Juchiizing  princi- 
ples. 

All  this  de[)end8  upon  correctness  of  critical  results. 
If  the  Gospels  are  genuine,  then  the  essential  truth  was 
delivered  hv  Christ  Himself.  One  great  purpose  of  His 
life  was  to  convince  men  that  lie  was  Son  of  God,  claim- 
ing equality  with  God,  as  well  as  the  Messiah.  Of 
course,  tlien,  there  is  no  a  />r?'or/ objection  to  John.  There 
is  not  a  truth  in  the  epistles  which  is  not  in  some  shape 
contained  in  the  words  of  Jesus  Himself.  In  His  final 
discourse  He  promised  the  Spirit,  and  He  expressly  de- 
ferred telling  them  man\'  things  until  they  should  be  able 
to  bear  it. 

What  is  then  the  true  historical  development?  That 
is  a  difficult  question.  According  to  Protestant  rule  of 
faith,  all  truth  of  salvation  is  revealed  in  the  Scriptures. 
Any  doctrine  that  is  new,  must  therefore  be  rejected. 
Development  of  doctrine  must  be  confined  to  the  reve- 
lation in  the  N.  T.  itself,  and  what  flows  from  it  by  logi- 
cal inference  and  insight  into  its  underlying  principles. 
After  all,  the  whole  substance  is  matter  of  revelation. 
It  is  generally  believed  that  there  is  a  progress  iu  the 
Scriptures  in  two  respects  : 

I.  There  is  progress  in  actual  revelation.  Is  there 
not  a  progress  from  the  O.  T.  to  '^.  T.  ?  and  within  the 
0.  T.  itself  from  the  patriarchal  promises  to  the  53d  of 
Is.  ?  Christ  Himself  recognized  this  principle.  (John 
16  :  12.)  There  is  a  difference  between  His  teachings  in 
Galilee  and  Judea.  Progress  :  (a)  According  to  prepara- 
tion of  men  to  receive  it.  (b)  According  to  concrete 
circumstances — in  condition  of  church  itself  In  the 
life  of  Christ,  the  great  point  was  the  Messiahship— all 
truth  relating  to  that.  After  the  resurrection,  while  the 
church  was  being  established  in  India,  the  essential 
thing  was  to  convince  men  that  Jesus  was  the  Messiah, 
and  of  the  truth  of  the  resurrection  and  the  outpouring 
of  the  H.  S.  For  that  purpose  only  a  very  general  state- 
ment was  necessary,  and  in  poi>ular  form,  (c)  vVhen 
Paul  begins  to  argue  that  Judaism  was  done  away,  the 


28 

reasons  and  principles  are  given.  The  doctrine  of  sin 
and  nature  of  the  atonement  were  ap[:)Hc;il)le  to  all,  yet 
the  statement  of  them  grew  out  of  the  actual  contro- 
versy. 

II.  In  the  truth  as  apprehended  hy  the  church.  They 
could  not  at  first  sufficiently  appropriate  all  the  truth  and 
formulate  it  into  a  creed.  Just  as  the  Apostolic  Fathers 
aiter  the  close  of  the  revelation  were  not  ahle  to  see  the 
truth  in  all  its  relations.  No  one  could  cover  the  whole 
ground.  So  there  is  growth  in  Peter's  mind.  He  at 
first  expects  all  men  to  become  Jews,  yet  Christ  had 
taught  him  better.  He  held  the  essential  truth  in  regard 
to  the  Gentiles,  but  looked  at  it  with  his  0.  T.  concep- 
tions. Only  years  after  were  his  eyes  opened.  He  states 
that  he  had  changed  his  mind.  I'here  was  a  difference 
in  inspired  men  themselves  in  what  tliey  taught  and  in 
what  they  thought  was  involved  in  that  teaching. 

"J'here  is  a  difficulty  in  fixing  place  of  books  in  N.  T. 
fiistory  of  doctrine.  Immense  distance  between  Peter's 
discourses  and  John's  Gospels.  John  was  reserved  for 
late  publication  until  circumstances  of  church  and  long 
course  of  preparation  called  for  it.  Plere  is  best  brought 
out  the  essential  relation  of  the  believer  to  Christ. 
Christ  gave  more  than  could  be  apprehended  at  the 
time.  It  was  necessary  to  authenticate  His  claims.  Ex- 
amine early  deliverances  of  doctrine  and  we  fitid  that 
was  kept  back  wliich  did  not  bear  directly  upon  establish- 
ment of  the  church  in  Jadea,  not  only  because  it  was  not 
necessary,  but  because  it  would  have  actually  impeded 
the  cause.  If  Peter  had  preached  the  doctrines  of  the 
epistle  to  Rom.  to  the  Jews  at  Pent.,  he  would  have 
scattered  tlie  church.  It  was  best  for  him  not  to  realize 
the  full  N.  T.  conception  at  this  time.  Peter's  great  doc- 
trine was  the  unity  of  Christianity  with  Judaisn),  and  for 
proof  he  appeals  to  prophecy.  Paul  appeals  to  the  dis- 
tinctions between  the  two,  and  shows  that  Christianity 
has  something  more  than  the  prophets. 

The  leading  doctrines  brought  forward  by  Peter  were 
the  Messiahship  of  Jesus,  necessity  of  faith  in  Him,  and 
the  unity  of  the  two  dispensations.  Interesting  to  con- 
trast Peter's  conceptions  with  Paul  on  the  one  hand,  and 


29 

James  on  tlie  otlier.  1.  He  dwells  on  tlie  historical 
aspects  of  work  ot  Clirist  ratlicr  fliaii  the  doctrines — 
consequently  lie  adduces  ().  1\  rct'erences  to  ('hrist's 
life  rather  tlian  llis  teachings.  2.  He  dwells  upon  proph- 
ecy— tlie  positive  fnlfilhnent  of  O.  T.  in  N.  T.  Contrasts 
liere  witli  Jarnes,  whose  point  of  view  is  development  of 
new  covenant  out  of  old  on  side  of  law  rather  than 
prophecy.  His  teaching  is  of  an  ethical  character,  like  ser- 
mon on  mount.  3.  Peter  is  the  Apostle  of  hope.  This 
idea  very  prominent  in  liis  first  epistle — dwells  much  on 
second  coming  of  Christ.  He  associates  Messiah  as  con- 
(jueror  with  Messiali  as  sufferer.  This  led  to  his  dwelling 
on  second  coming.  It  is  alleged  that  liardly  any  theol- 
ogy is  to  be  f(<und  in  tliese  discourses.  He  dwells  prin- 
cii»ally  on  Christ's  humanity.  They  say  there  is  not  a 
word  here  to  show  that  he  believed  Christ  was  God  or 
had  life  in  Himself,  and  nothing  as  to  the  atoning  value 
of  His  death.  But  he  had  no  occasion  to  refer  to  them. 
He  only  wanted  to  show  the  sin  ofthe  Jewsin  killing 
Him,  and  proves  from  prophecy  that  His  death  was  not 
inconsistent  wath  His  Messianic  claims.  On  this,  two 
things  are  to  be  said:  1.  Above  inference  is  unfair. 
Peter  was  not  teaciiing  a  system  of  theology  or  telling 
all  he  knew.  2.  Fair  analysis  of  the  discourses  shows 
these  points,  (a)  Doctrine  of  resurrection  and  the  Apos- 
tles as  witnesses  of  it,  (b)  Chief  article  of  faith  was  Jesus 
Cinist  as  Messiah  and  Lord  (ch.  10:  38),  (e)  Peter's  use 
of  7r«^c  ft^o'j  rather  than  uio^  t)euo.  Tlie  latter  refers  to 
sameness  of  nature,  the  formei"  is  derived  from  prophecy 
fis.  41).  "Servant  of  God,"  referring  to  His  nature 
rather  than  His  person.  He  never  applies  uiu^  to  Christ 
except  in  his  second  epistle  in  his  reminiscence  of  the 
transfiguration,  *' this  is  my  beloved  son."  But  to  say 
that  he  does  not  believe  in  the  divinity  of  Christ  is  absurd 
and  untenable.  He  does  not  present  as  developed  a 
Christolog}'  as  Paul,  but  he  ascribes  titles  and  works  of 
God  to  Him,  and  makes  Him  direct  object  of  worship. 
In  Acts  10:  38  speaks  of  His  miracles;  in  ActsS:  14  His 
absolute  sinlessness,  especially  in  contrast  with  His  mur- 
derers. Calls  Him  the  "  Prince  of  life,"  "that  Prophet." 
In  ch.  3  :  13  he  establishes  their  criminality  :  in  4  :  12  that 


30 

there  was  salvation  in  no  other;  in  5:31  that  He  alone 
can  give  repentance  and  remission  of  sins.  What  does 
he  mean  by  salvation  ?  From  an  evil  generation,  as 
fnlfillment  of  promise  to  Abraham,  forgiveness  of  sins, 
{vide  ch.  10  :  43  ;  2  :  38  ;  3  :  19).  Its  condition,  faith  in 
Christ.  It  was  intended  for  all,  the  Jews  first,  and  then 
Gentiles.  He  supposed  Judaism  perpetual.  Prominent 
article  of  his  faith  was  the  second  coming  of  Christ. 
When  the  Apostles  became  instructors  the}-  were  "occu- 
pied with  calling  first  for  the  recognition  of  the  Christian 
facts,  along  with  the  most  simple  elements  of  truth  as  to 
their  meaning.  That  God  had  sent  His  Son  for  us,  that 
it  was  He  who  was  crucified  in  weakness,  that  God  had 
raised  Him  up,  that  the  Spirit  was  now  given,  that 
repentance  and  forgiveness  of  sins  were  preached  through 
Christ's  name,  and  given  for  His  sake  and  that  He  should 
come  again  :  these  were  the  first  points.  Through  these, 
men  were  led  on  to  all  that  this  history  was  fitted  to  dis- 
close— who  this  Son  was — in  what  sense  He  was  the  Son 
— how  forgiveness  was  His  to  bestow,  and  so  on."  (Rainy, 
"  Delivery  and  Development  of  Christian  Doctrine,"  page 
85.)  Development  in  two  points  :  I.  Supernatural  guid- 
ance to  record  what  they  remembered  of  Christ's  teach- 
ing ;  and  II.,  their  understandings  are  enlightened  hy 
historical  circumstances  and  under  guidance  of  H.  S. 

Arguments  against  the  autlienticity  of  these  speeches. 
[Best  replied  to  as  the  cases  come  up.]  1.  Artificial 
correspondence  between  Peter's  and  Paul's  speeches. 
2.  The  idea  of  calling  of  the  Gentiles  is  Pauline.  Peter 
never  had  it  until  Paul's  success.  3.  Reference  to  the 
suffering  Messiah  is  not  made  by  Peter,  because  the  idea 
is  not  in  prophets.  [This  is  a  question  for  O.  T.  exege- 
sis.] 4.  Peter's  discourses  so  much  alike — none  of  the 
freshness  of  circumstance  about  them.  Of  course  he 
dwells  on  essential  facts  constantly.  5.  They  bear  the 
impress  of  Luke's  pen.  Like  the  speeches  of  generals  in 
Xenophon  and  Homer,  they  are  all  the  productions  of 
the  author.  But  numerous  coincidences  of  language  can 
be  shown  betweeti  these  speeches  and  Peter's  epistles, 
as  there  can  between  Paul's  speeches  and  epistles. 

Effect    of    Peter's   Sermon,    ch.    2 :  37-41.     Sign   and 
reality  combined.     "  They  were  pricked  in  their  heart," 


31 

and  asked,  "  Wljat  shall  we  do  ?"  Conditions  of  salva- 
tion. The  directions  are  plain  and  eoinprehensive. 
"  Re|tent  and  be  bai)tized."  They  must  repent  in  heart 
and  openly  honor  Ilini  whom  they  had  rejected.  Who 
did  Peter  refer  to  by  the  words,  "  Unto  all  that  are  afar 
otf  ?"  Meyer  and  Baumgarten  say,  not  the  Gentiles,  on 
the  srround  tliat  Peter  was  yet  nnder  bondage  to  Judaism, 
and  restricts  to  "  Diaspora."  The  other  view  is  evidently 
correct.  Even  under  O.  D.  Gentiles  might  be  admitted. 
His  mistake  was  in  supposing  that  they  must  become 
Jews.  Added  to  the  church  3,000  souls,  (a)  This  estab- 
lished the  church  firmly  at  the  outset.  Paul  found  in 
Europe  that  he  had  been  preceded  by  these,  (b)  Also 
representative  of  future  success.  These  additions  to  the 
church  were  on  a  scale  commensurate  with  its  claims  to 
conquer  the  world.  V.  40.  Peter  aided  by  other  Apos- 
tles continued  to  exhort  "  with  many  other  words."  Not 
simply  a  miraculous  ingathering  of  the  mass,  but  instruc- 
tion to  individuals. 

The  word  ixxXr^aifi  is  apfdied  for  the  fii'st  time  to  the 
Christian  cliurch  on  its  baptismal  day,  v.  47.  The  word 
occurs  three  times  in  Matthew,  always  referring  to  the 
future  church  (Matt.  16:18,  xVIatt.  18  :  17).  With  the 
thing  begins  the  name.  Term  borrowed  from  the  Athe- 
nian assembly  of  citizens — used  in  liXX.  for  whole  bodj^ 
of  the  people,  sometimes  for  the  synagogue.  Critics  <lis- 
pute  accuracy  of  tlie  text  in  this  place — tTAlr^ata  is  omitted 
by  .MSS.  A.  B.  C.  Sin.,  and  by  Vulg.  Lachm.  Tisch.  In 
order  to  complete  the  sense  the  i7z\  to  abrb  from  the  be- 
ginning of  the  next  chap,  is  taken  with  this  sense,  "  The 
Lord  added  daily  rohz  aM^ouii^oo^  into  one  body."  The 
rendering  of  aco^oidvo'j::  is  one  of  the  few  instances  where 
the  charge  of  Theol.  bias  is  brought  against  our  transla- 
tors. No  evidence  of  doctrinal  intent — the  translation  is 
explained  by  the  difference  of  idiom.  Literally  "  the 
saving  ones"  or  "  those  in  the  process  of  being  saved." 
Some  retain  ecclesia. 

3Io(le  of  reception  into  fhe  chiireh  hij  baptism.  Disciples 
were  accustomed  to  significance  of  act  by  baptism  of 
John.  These  were  first  Christian  baptisms.  No  evi- 
dence that  the  Apostles  or  first  believers  were  baptized 


32 

by  Christian  baptism.  The  3.000  were.  It  was  adopted 
as  the  initial  rite  because  of  its  appropriateness.  The 
act  was  representative  of  remission  of  sins.  No  argu- 
ment here  for  sudden  introduction  of  ignorant  masses 
into  the  church.  These  Jews  were  instructed  before, 
except  as  to  the  point  of  Christ  being  Messiah.  The 
conditions  of  baptism  were  repentance  and  confession  of 
faith.  Some  claim  that  assent  to  the  doctrine  of  the 
MessialishipOf  Jesus  was  sufficient,  but  repentance  was 
also  required.  Xo  distinction  between  outward  and 
inward  faith,  one  logically  implies  the  other.  Confession 
and  repentance  are  inwai'd  exercises, not  merely  specu- 
lative. Mode — unessential.  Argument  against  immer- 
sion of  such  numbers  from  the  scarcity  of  water  in  Jeru- 
salem may  be  good  or  not.  P'ormula — in  the  name  of 
Christ  ;  some  think  not  in  name  of  Trinity.  But  the 
full  form  is  probably  not  given,  because  so  well  known. 
Doctrine  of  f^erson  of  Christ  carries  with  it  doctrine  of 
Trinity. 

C.  General  Description  of  the  Mother  Church. 
(Ch.  11.:  42-47.)  Formation  of  separate  worship,  v.  44. 
•Tuc  TO  duTo  some  take  in  local  sense,  others,  in  unity  of 
spirit.  Shows  local  separation.  42  v.  Waited  on  the 
instruction  of  the  Apostles.  Place  of  assemblage,  v.  46. 
xa.T  ocxou.  A.  V.  "  from  house  to  house,"  properly  "  at 
home."  See  ch.  18:  7,  and  1  Cor.  16  :  19  speaks  of 
church  in  house  of  Aquila  and  Priscilla.  Synagogue 
afforded  good  opportunity  for  instruction  of  strangers. 
It  is  an  important  fact  that  the  Christians  did  not  break 
off  suddenly  from  the  temple  worship.  Christians  saw 
all  these  things  in  new  glory.  We  may  imagine  the 
emotion  of  these  new  converts  at  seeing  the  vail  now 
taken  away.  They  viewed  the  sacrifice  and  saw  the 
priests  performing  their  duties,  wliilst  they  were  conscious 
that  they  had  seen  the  true  sacrifice  for  sin.  Such  ideas 
being  associated  with  these  scenes,  it  is  no  wonder  that 
they  continued  more  devotedly  attached  to  them,  hoping 
foi-  their  continuance.  It  certainly  continued  till  the 
destruction  of  the  temple,  A.  D.  70.  Dr.  Schatf  says 
Paul's  controversy  proves  that  worship  was  continued  in 
the  temple.     In   Rom.  14  :  15  Paul   urges  consideration 


33 

for  these  hretlireii.  Abont  all  we  know  of  James  is 
associated  with  this  woi\ship.  Paul  always  went  first 
into  the  synaiJj(>i(iie.  He  went  up  to  tiie  feast,  Acts  18: 
21,  Acts  18:18.  Had  his  head  "sjiorn  in  Cenchrea,  for 
he  had  a  vow."  He  was  arrested  while  worshiping  in 
the  temple.  Here  we  have  the  two  dispensations  side  by 
side  overlapi^inoc  as  the  work  of  John  Baptist  overlapped 
that  of  Christ. 

Design  of  this  1.  Shows  that  there  was  no  break 
necessarily  between  the  two  systems — the  tiew  was  en- 
grafted on  the  old.  Christianity  was  necessary  to  the 
dignity  of  O.  D.  as  giving  it  substance  and  value.  2. 
i^'ultills  the  j)romises  of  God  in  that  the  abrogation  of 
the  old  dispensati(Mi  was  a  Judicial  judgment  npnu  their 
continued  persecution  and  rejection.  3.  Greatly  en- 
hanced success  of  church.  Rulers  were  willing  for  the 
sect  to  exist  as  long  as  they  paid  tithes  and  submitted  to 
priestly  authority.  Tlius  also  it  was  recommended  to 
the  multitude.  Tliis  anomalous  state  of  things  was  kept 
up  tlirougiiout  all  l*auPs  life.  This  was  the  very  con- 
ception of  the  ministry  of  James,  who  held  the  door 
open  for  the  Jews  to  come  in  during  all  Paul's  life,  keep- 
ing up  a  Christian  element  in  the  temple  and  making  it 
easy  for  the  Jews  to  become  Christians.  This  showslhe 
essential  unity  of  Christian  life  under  various  forms. 
Contrast  the  freedojn  of  the  church  at  Corinth  witli  the 
formality  of  that  at  Jerusalem.  4.  Enabled  Christianity 
to  retain  all  that  was  serviceable  in  the  traditions  and 
organization  of  the  O.  D.  Synagogue  naturally  passed 
over  and  gave  form  to  the  Christian  assemblies.  Office 
of  elder  continued.  Reading  of  and  reverence  for  O.  T. 
Scriptures  prepared  the  way  for  collecting  N".  T.  canon. 
It  is  difficult  to  conceive  of  transfer  to  N.  D.  without 
some  such  juxtaposition.  Baur  says  that  if  Christianity 
be  supernatural,  it  cannot  be  historical,  as  history  pre- 
supposes development.  All  that  is  historical  in  the 
church  is  Jewish.  The  whole  Gentile  world  thus  had  a 
training  in  the  0.  T.  and  by  tliis  process  those  Gentiles 
who  had  not  had  the  teaching  of  proselytes  were  made 
familiar  with  O.  T.  ideas  out  of  which  Christianity  grew. 
They  were  led  to   look  on   Jewish  system  as  living  but 


34 

not  completed.  5.  On  tlie  other  hand,  evil  whs  con- 
nected with  it,  because  it  facilitated  the  introduction  into 
the  church  of  Judaizing  and  Pharisaical  influences.  A 
converted  Pharisee  often  became  a  Christian  IMiarisee. 
Every  conversion  was  not  like  St.  Paul's.  This  led  to 
formation  of  parties,  doctrinal  controversies  and  aber- 
rati(uis.  Skeptics  seize  on  this  to  show  that  early  church 
was  Judaic  in  form  and  practice. 

Parts  of  Worship.  1.  Adhered  to  the  teachino^ 
of  the  Apostles.  2.  Public  prayer.  3.  Breaking  of  bread. 
Some  refer  this  to  Eucharist  exclusively,  others  to  social 
meals  afterwards  developed  into  the  acidpm.  Might 
apply  to  either  or  both,  as  Eucharist  was  first  taken  in 
connection  with  ordinaiy  meals.  No  mention  of  singing 
or  of  reading  Sci'iptures,  but  these  were  parts  of  syna- 
gogue worship.  N.  T.  list  of  books  was  gradually  fonried, 
and  the  epistles  were  directed  to  be  read  in  churches. 
Charismata  not  mentioned  here,  but  full  description  in 
1  Cor.  4.  "  Fellowship  "  [xocvcovia)  joint  participation 
applied  both  to  communion  and  distrilnitimi  of  charities. 

"Had  all  things  in  common,"  ch.  4  :  32-34.  Two 
views  :  (1.)  Absolute  community  of  goods,  (a)  Some 
consider  this  the  normal  state  of  the  church,  (b)  Others 
regard  it  as  temporary.  Skeptics  take  the  extreme  view 
and  then  say  it  is  unhistorical.  (2.)  All  distinction  of 
property  was  not  destroyed.  The  grace  of  charity  flour- 
ished so  all  realized  that  they  were  stewards  of  the  Lord. 
They  sold  and  parted  their  possessions  as  "  every  man 
had  need."  They  did  not  give  where  there  was  no  want. 
This  view  is  proven  (1)  from  the  expression  just  quoted. 
(2)  Joses  Barnabas  (ch.  4  :  36, 37)  is  singled  out  as  a  remark- 
able case.  (3.)  From  Peter's  rebuke  (ch.  6  :  4)  of  Ana- 
nias and  Sapphira.  (4  )  There  was  a  distinction  of  prop- 
erty still  in  Jerusalem,  for  mother  of  John  Mark  had  a 
house.  The  epistles  show  that  there  were  rich  as  well 
as  poor  in  church.  James  speaks  of  rich  men  in  the 
assemblies.  (5.)  No  such  practice  mentioned  elsewhere 
in  N.  T.  No  teaching  as  to  charity  precludes  this  idea. 
No  mention  of  church  organization.  It  does  not  follow 
that  such  was  not  essential.  Church  government  grew 
out  of  known  wants.     This  comraunitv  of  goods  with  the 


35 

spiritual  life,  and  miraculous  powers  of  the  Christians, 
produced  a  o;reat  effect  on  the  community  without.  Such 
were  tirst  effects  of  Spirit  in  church.  Exao:ii:;eration  of 
this  description  is  the  foundation  of  the  skeptical  aro^u- 
ments.  They  say  tlie  early  church  was  a  band  of  enthu- 
siasts. 

II.  History  of  Oiiuhcii  at  Jeuusalkm  till  Death 
OF  Stephen — about  6  years,  chs.  3-7.  What  was  to  be 
the  effect  of  introduction  of  Christianity  into  Jewish  so- 
ciety ?  .('hrist  had  just  left  His  disciples  telling  them  He 
would  come  again.  Had  [»roniiscd  them  assistance. 
They  felt  that  tlie  community  was  in  their  favor.  They 
would  expect  the  cliurch  rapidly  to  increase  until  the 
world  came  to  an  end.  There  were  two  mistakes  which 
they  were  liable  to  fall  into:  1.  Ex|iecting  the  speedy 
conquest  of  the  world.  2.  Looking  for  perfect  purity  of 
the  church  by  reason  of  the  presence  of  the  II.  S.  The 
one  was  corrected  l)y  persecution,  the  other  by  corruj)- 
tion  within. 

The  method  of  the  historian  is  not  to  give  a  con- 
nected narrative,  but  a  series  of  instances,  typical  of 
cliurch  history  in  all  ages.  Conflicts  of  the  church 
were  overruled  to  secure  first  conquest.  Persecution  led 
to  the  scattering  of  the  disci[)Ies,  and  the  consequent  ex- 
tension of  tlie  church.  Corruption  was  overruled  so 
as  to  induce  watchfulness. 

(1.)  First  /Persecution.  (Chs,  3-4.)  Miracle  recorded  in 
ch.  3  is  selected,  because  it  occasioned  the  persecution. 
Effect  of  miracle  was  such  that  the  people  were  filled 
with  fear.  They  went  to  Solomon's  porch,  and  Peter  de- 
livers another  sermon.  •  He  disclaims  all  power — refers 
all  to  Christ.  1.  Miracle  by  power  of  God  and  for  glory 
of  Christ.  2.  God  the  Father  of  Christ.  3.  Christ  de- 
scribed as  the  "  Holy  One  and  the  Just,"  4.  Repentance 
and  confession,  conditions  of  salvation  throiigli  Him. 
5.  Unity  of  Scripture.  Persecution  (ch.  4)  was  at  first 
apparently  accidental  and  not  an  act  of  rulers.  Apostles 
were  arrested  to  quiet  the  uproar  in  the  temple,  caused 
by  miracles.  Paul  and  John  were  arrested  at  the  insti- 
gation of  the  priests,  jealous  of  the  power  of  the  twelve. 
Sadducees  took  part  i-ather  than    Pharisees.     Pharisaic 


36 

opposition  to  Christ  was  on  account  of  the  spirituality  of 
His  doctrine.  Sadduceea  now  take  the  lead  on  account  ot" 
Apostles'  doctrine  of  resurrection.  This  gave  safety  to 
the  church  because  the  Pharisees  were  in  power.  Sad- 
ducees  were  phihjsopliers,  inclined  to  free-thinking,  and 
did  not  exercise  much  influence.  Inactivity  of  Pharisees 
caused  by  contempt  for  the  Christians.  They  took  little 
notice  of  disciples  after  death  of  Christ.  Christians  paid 
tithes  and  worshiped  in  the  temiile — hence,  were;  re- 
garded as  only  a  sect  among  the  Jews.  When  the  power 
of  the  twelve  returned,  the  hostility  of  the  Pharisees 
was  renewed.  The  Apostles  were  arraigned  before  the 
Sanhedrin.  "Peter  filled  with  the  H.  G."  answered 
with  a  bold  and  condensed  statement  of  the  Gospel. 
They  could  not  deny  the  miracle,  but  forbade  the  Apos- 
tles to  preach  any  more  in  Christ's  name.  Apostles  re- 
fused to  submit,  but  the  priests  let  them  go  because  they 
feared  the  people. 

1.     Efi:'ects  :  Priests   were   amazed   at  the  learning  of 
Peter  and  John,  "  and  they  took  knowledge  of  them  that 
they    had    been    witli    Jesus."     Some   say    they    simply 
recognized  the  twelve  as  having  been  seen  with  Christ. 
Others,  that  they  acknowledged  Christ's  power  in  them. 

2.  There  was  a  fresh  revival, — about  5,000  believed.  This 
probably  includes  the  previous  3,000.  Audf»£^  sometimes 
used  strictly  for   males,  sometimes   includes  both    sexes. 

3.  The  church  brought  anew  into  notice,  and  its  spiritual 
power  increased.  jSText  follows  the  prayer  of  the  church, 
V.  24,  IF.  Did  all  pray  in  the  same  words  ?  Some  think 
there  was  a  prescribed  form  used.  Others  think  they 
were  made  to  use  the  same  words  by  the  Spirit. 
The  substance  of  the  prayer  doubtless  is  given, 
all  having  joined  with  one  leader.  Second  general 
description  of  the  church  occurs  in  latter  part  of  this 
chap. — elements  of  it  discussed  above. 

(2.)  First  Corruption. — Ch.  6  :  1-16.  Persecution  and 
corruption  alternate.  This  corrects  the  mistake  that  the 
church  should  remain  pure.  Ananias  is  contrasted  with 
Barnabas.  The  sin  of  Ananias  and  Sapphira  consisted  in 
lying  to  the  H.  G.,  because  tlie  Spirit  dwelt  in  the  Apos- 
tles and  the  church.     As  this  was  their  worst  sin,  Peter 


37 

does  not  notice  tlie  rest  —  hypocrisy,  covetoiisiiess,  &c. 
"  Laid  the  price  at  the  A|)ostles'  feet."  Some  infer  that 
this  was  an  ostentations  }»resentation  of  cliarity.  Peter 
refers  their  sin  to  Satan,  hnt  ch:ir<)^es  them  with  acconnt- 
ahility  for  it.  What  part  had  Peter  in  death  of  An.inias? 
Some  deem  it  a  miracle  consciouslv'  [lerformed  by  him, 
others  think  not  Peter's  act  at  all.  Neander  thinks  that 
tiieir  sndden  disappointment  and  discovery  killed  them. 
This  is  not  probable,  especially  as  there  are  two  cases. 
Donbtless  l)y  direct  act  of  God  with  a  view  of  shielding 
the  church  from  danger,  and  teaching  that  her  purity 
was  to  be  jirotectod  by  discipline.  Upon  this  view  their 
punishment  was  not  disproportionate  to  their  crime. 
Skeptics  refer  the  eftect  produceil  by  this  miracle  to  the 
enthusiasm  and  ci-edulity  of  the  early  Christians,  Some 
believe  usojTSf/ui,  "young  men,"  to  have  been  deacons, 
but  this  office  was  not  originated  until  time  of  Stephen. 
Eftect  upon  the  church  was  to  fill  them  with  awe  and  to. 
keep  them  from  becoming  careless.  Effect  on  commun- 
ity, V.  11,  "Great  fear  came  upon  all  liearing  it,"  vs.  12, 
18,  "Of  the  rest  durst  no  man  join  himself  to  them." 
This  probably  refers  to  others  like  Ananias.  There 
was  now  an  increase  of  gifts  of  liealing,  and  many  cures 
were  wrought.  The  faith  of  the  church  was  strength- 
ened, and  their  numbers  were  again  multiplied.  This 
account  dwells  more  on  the  inner  life  of  the  church  than 
the  descri[)tions  in  chs.  2  and  4. 

(3.)  Second  Persecution,  (Ch.  V.  17-42).  Notice  again 
the  alternation  between  persecution  and  corrtiption. 
Church  is  now  formidable,  and  success  brought  persecu- 
tion. High  priest  and  his  party  joined  with  the  Saddu- 
cees,  who  were  the  active  party.  From  the  prominence 
of  Sadducees  in  this  persecution,  it  is  inferred  that  the 
H.  P.  was  a  Sadducee,  for  (1)  history  shows  that  Saddu- 
cees were  more  cruel  than  Pharisees,  (2)  the  Sanhedrin 
was  composed  of  sycophants  and  creatures  of  Rome. 
Tliese  more  likely  to  be  Sadducees.  (3)  Later  H.  P. 
known  to  be  a  Sadducee.  (4)  The  name  of  Pharisees  as 
persecutors  of  the  chur(;li  is  dropped  after  crucifixion. 
This  is  not  a  mere  repetition  of  first  persecution.  That 
was  accidental   in   its  origin,  but  in  this  there  was  con- 


38 

eerted  action,  and  more  violence.  In  first,  only  Peter 
and  John  were  accused,  but  in  this  the  movement  was 
against  all  the  Apostles  as  representing  the  church. 
Divine  interference  b}'  a  miracle  was  called  for.  There 
was  also  greater  popular  excitement,  so  that  rulers  charge 
the  Apostles  with  intending  to  avenge  Christ's  death 
upon  them.  The  Aj'ostles  being  thrown  into  "the  com- 
mon prison,"  the  angel  of  the  Lord  was  sent  to  release 
them.  Skeptics  here  ask,  what  was  the  use  of  this  release 
if  they  were  again  arrested  next  day  ?  And  why  did  the 
Apostles  not  invoke  such  aid  before  the  Sanhedrin  ? 
Real  design  was  to  encourage  the  church — to  show  that 
Christ  knew  and  permitted  what  happened  to  them, 
Baumc/atten  compares  this  to  Christ's  exhibition  of  power 
in  striking  down  the  soldiers  who  came  to  arrest  Ilim, 
though  He  did  not  afterwards  use  it.  The  disciples  were 
scourged  (v.  40),  showing  that  theii- possession  of  mirac- 
ulous powers  did  not  exempt  them  from  the  sufferings  of 
their  Master.  As  a  further  design  it  was  a  warning  to 
their  enemies.  Trial  before  Sanhedrin.  Some  think 
the  whole  bench  of  elders  was  present.  Tlie  charge  was 
the  old  one — teaching  in  the  name  of  Christ.  Peter's 
answer  was  brief,  pointed  and  bold.  "He  ought  to  obey 
God  rather  than  man."  Notice  his  short,  pithy  state- 
ment of  essential  doctrines.  Advice  of  Gamaliel — if  this 
be  of  man  it  will  come  to  nought,  if  of  God  ye  can  not 
overthrow  it.  Why  not  right  principle  ?  Did  not  rise 
above  worldly  wisdom.  They  were  in  a  dangerous  posi- 
tion and  it  was  prudent  to  wait.  The  Sanhedrin  com- 
promises. They  condemn  the  Apostles  to  silence  after 
scourging  them.  As  one  effect  of  the  persecution  the 
church  grew  bolder.  Objections  to  the  narrative  :  1. 
Gamaliel's  course  was  impossible  if  the  previous  miracle 
was  true.  If  the  miracle  was  untrue,  tlien  all  the  pas- 
sage is  untrue.  2.  Pharisees  would  not  become  the  pro- 
tectors of  the  church.  Ans.  This  is  a  proof  of  authen- 
ticity, as  no  pseudo-Luke  would  represent  the  Pharisees 
as  defending  the  church.  3.  An  anachronism  is  charged 
in  Gamaliel's  reference  to  Theudas.  Josephus  gives  the 
account  (Jos.  XX.  5-11)  but  makes  it  ten  years  after 
date  of  Gamaliel,  also  places  him  aftfr  Judas.       Hence 


39 

some  critics  reject  this  wliolc  account  as  an  aftei-work. 
Some  say  tliat  Joso[)luis  is  as  likely  to  make  a  mistake  as 
Luke,  but  that  is  not  probable,  as  he  gives  details.  Jo- 
seplius  may  refer  to  a  subse([iient  Judas,  as  it  was  a  com- 
mon name.  There  were  4  Simons  and  o  Judases  that  led 
revolts.  Another  explanation  identifies  Theudas  with 
Mattliias  who  was  with  Judas.  Hence  Gamaliel  jMits 
them  totretlier.  Wieseler  says  Theudas  is  equal  to  Mat- 
thias in  Greek  and  Hebrew.  The  mention  of  later  tax- 
ing under  Quirinus  by  Luke,  shows  that  he  knew,  (cf. 
Luke  2  :  1,  2,  with   Acts  5  :  37). 

Gamaliel's  History.  Was  a  grandson  of  Hillel,  and 
son  of  Rabbi  Simon,  and  head  of  strictest  sect  of  the 
Jews.  Lived  till  43  or  53  A.  D.  The  tradition  which 
makes  Gamaliel  a  Christian  is  not  reliable.  Saul  would 
not  have  studied  with  a  Christian. 

(4.)  Second  dijficalt>/  inithiii,  leading  to  a  new  office  in 
the  cliurch,  ch.  6  :  1-7).  The  narrative  is  introduced 
incidentally,  hence  no  fuller  account  of  the  office. 
Trouble  results  from  same  source  as  before,  viz  :  com- 
munity t)f  goods.  The  Hellenistic  Jews  complained  that 
their  widows  had  been  "  neglected  in  the  daily  ministra- 
tion," The  original  Christians  were  Hebrew-speaking 
Jews,  the  otliers  were  Greek-speaking.  The  latter  wer^ 
more  liberal  and  less  Pharisaic.  Rman  says  Hellenistic 
Jews  were  more  credulous.  They  received  the  truth 
more  readily  because  of  the  liberality  of  foreign  culture. 
The  Jerusalem  Jews  held  themselves  above  the  foreign 
Jews.  Whicli  class  pre(h)minated  it  is  hard  to  say ; 
probably  at  first  the  Aramaic-s|>eaking  Jews.  This  diffi- 
cultly was  natural  and  less  bhuneworthy  tlian  the  fornier. 
If  the  cause  really  existed,  it  was  justitiable.  There  was 
])robably  some  just  though  unintentional  cause  for  com- 
plaint, and  tlie  Apostles  take  stejis  to  remove  it  at  once. 
They  meet  the  (Jifficulty  by  the  organization  of  a  new 
office,  thus  recognizing  the  necessity  of  a  more  complete 
organization,  which  was  in  a(;cordance  with  their  needs. 
Power  of  appointment  resided  in  the  church  and  not  in 
the  Apostles.  It  is  now  by  election,  whereas  before  it 
was  by  lot.  They  called  the  people  together,  and  directed 
them  to  choose  whom  tliey  thought  worthy.     They  would 


40 

teach  the  cliurch  that  the  H.  S.  was  within  her,  and  her 
members  must  exercise  their  power.  Seven  men  were 
chosen,  all  of  whom  had  Greek  names.  Some  infer  that 
the  office  previously  existed,  and  was  held  by  the  He- 
brews.     They  refer  to  the  '*  young  men,"  (ch.  5  :  6). 

But  we  have  here  the  institution  of  an  office,  not  the 
enlargement  of  an  old  office.  This  service  had  before 
been  dischai-ged  by  the  Apostles.  (Ch.  5  :  2.)  Others 
infer  that  the  new  office  was  an  evidence  of  extraordinar}- 
charity  on  part  of  Hebrews.  But  Greek  names  do  not 
prove  that  all  were  Hellenists.  .Many  flebrews  had 
Greek  names.  Many  Jews  becoming  Christians  would 
take  Greek  names.  Thus  they  would  be  more  widely 
known.  The  only  name  rea|ipearing  afterwards,  besides 
Stephen  and  Philip,  is  Nicholas.  Tradition  derives  the 
Nicolaitanes  from  hioK  I'his  sect  is  censured  in  Revela- 
tion, for  making  their  liberty  a  cloak  for  licentiousness. 
Office  was  that  uf  deacons.  Their  function  was  probably 
more  comprehensive  than  waiting  on  the  poor  and  "  serv- 
ing tables."  The  latter  phrase  includes  all  but  prayer 
and  teaching.  This  is  the  first  step  towards  the  univer- 
sality of  the  Gospel.  Two,  Stephen  and  Philip,  became 
champions  of  emancipation.  As  a  result  of  this  the 
church  increased.  This  was  due  to  a  better  distribution 
of  cliarities,  the  division  of  labor,  and  the  zeal  of  those 
appointed.  Promoted  personal  acquaintance  and  sympa- 
thy. "  Great  company  of  the  priests  were  obedient  to 
the  faith."  Their  most  violent  opponents  we  see  were 
being  reached.  They  probably  lost  their  office  and  live- 
lihood and  were  exposed  to  social  obloquy.  This  con- 
version of  priests  not  contradicted  by  the  following  per- 
secution on  the  part  of  the  priests,  because  they  were 
numerous,  and  divided  in  belief  This  new  arrangement 
shows  importance  of  ministry  of  word  as  related  to  other 
things.  Apostles  give  themselves  wholly  to  it.  Ration- 
alists claim  that  power  of  Christianity  lies  in  its  social 
benefits.  It  is  the  elevation  of  slaves  and  women.  Renan 
says  Christianity  was  a  movement  of  the  poorer  classes. 
Rationalists  say  deacons  were  best  preachers.  To  them 
we  are  indebted  for  the  power  of  Christianity.  But  the 
Apostles  instituted  this  new  office  in  order  that  they 
might  give  themselves  to  "  the  ministry  of  the  word." 


41 

(5.)  Third  Persecution.  Oil.  6:  8 — 7.  Observe  again  the 
alternation  ot'internal  difficulty  and  outward  persecution. 
The  occasion  of  this  persecution  was  Stephen's  success 
in  disi)uting  with  the  unbelieving  Jews,  v.  9.  Notice 
five  names  of  countries.  Some  say  two  synagogues  are 
here  referred  to — one  of  Northern  Africa  and  one  of 
Asia.  Others  one  synagogue,  others  five.  This  perse- 
cution was  a  popular  movement  of  zealots.  Priests 
seized  their  opportunity.  It  proved  to  be  a  providential 
mode  of  scattering  the  Gros])el.  This  persecution  distin- 
guished from  others.  1.  Oame  from  Pharisees  and  not 
Sadducees.  Not  asserted  in  te.xt,  but  consistent  with  its 
origin  in  Hellenistic  synagogues.  All  Hellenists  were 
not  Sadducees,  e.  g.,  Paul.  2.  The  Ilelleui'^tic  move- 
ment was  onlv  a  connnencement.  The  churcli  had  grown 
rapidly  and  Pharisees  were  Jealous.  Reasons:  1.  The 
charge  against  Ste})hen  is  not  of  preaching  doctrine  of 
resurrection,  but  hlnsp}iern;i  —  the  charge  of  Pharisees 
against  Christ.  It  is  said  that  Luke  errs  in  calling  thes*^ 
men  false  witnesses,  for  Stephen  did  teach  thus.  Thej' 
were  false  in  perversion  and  exaggeration.  2.  Change 
of  popular  feeling.  The  Pharisees  were  the  popular 
party.  Hitherto  for  6  years  the  Christians  had  been  in 
great  favor.  Many  priests  were  converted.  People 
joined  with  unbelieving  priests  and  drove  the  Christinns 
from  the  city.  3.  Pait  taken  by  Saul  of  Tarsus.  The 
list  of  synagogues  includes  Cilicia.  He  had  attempted, 
poesibi}',  to  argue  with  Stephen  out  of  the  O.  T.  Hence 
his  anger  was  aroused.  Baur  says  this  persecution  dis- 
proves the  former  peace. 

Stephen's  Defence.  (Ch.  7.)  In  advance  of  his  age. 
Takes  a  stand  that  the  cliurch  does  not  reach  till  Council 
of  Jerusalem.     Gives  a  profound  view  of  philosophy  of 

0.  T.  history.  This  shows  he  was  inspired,  for  he  pre- 
cedes his  time.      Argument  involves    three    elements  : 

1.  Changes  involved  in  old  economy  itself.  Pharisees 
said  any  change  is  blasphemy.  He  traces  this  change 
thr(Mighout  its  history.  The  existing  state  of  things  did 
not  antedate  Solomon's  time.  It  was  oidy  designed  to 
be  temporary.  Pharisees,  plan  was  contrary  to  mode  of 
development.      2.   Change  involved  in   divine   purpose. 


42 

3.  These  changes  had  been  accomplished  by  the  opposi- 
tions of  the  nation.  Hence  tlieir  present  opposition 
nothing  strange. 

Why  was  persecution  on  this  gronnd  postponed  till 
now?  Because  the  particular  eftect  of  Christianity  had 
been  left  in  abeyance  until  now.  Stephen's  doctrine  was 
in  advance  of  Peter's.  This  appears  from  a  comparison 
with  Peter's  discourses.  1.  Latter  treated  of  the  fullill- 
ment  of  prophecy — said  nothing  about  the  abrogation  of 
Judaism.  2.  Peter's  surprise  at  the  conversion  of  Cor- 
nelius. He  thought  Christianity  was  to  be  engrafted  on 
the  temple  religion.  Even  after  this  at  Antioch,  he  re- 
fused to  meet  the  Gentile  Christians  at  table.  Peter's 
doctrine  represented  the  church  of  his  day,  while  that  of 
Stephen  was  a  positive  advance.  Not  inconsistent  with 
the  Apostolic  inspiration.  There  is  no  contradiction 
between  Stephen  and  Peter.  Peter's  teaching  implied 
change,  but  he  did  not  fully  realize  it.  He  might  have 
learned  this  of  Christ.  Christ  liad  taught  that  His  second 
coming  would  involve  a  change.  Isaiah's  predictions 
involve  all  that  Paul's  writings  contain,  but  he  had  not 
the  same  definiteness  of  view.  Peter  was  inspired  for 
one  purpose,  Stephen  for  another.  The  wonder  is,  not 
that  Peter  did  not  see,  but  that  Paul  and  Steplien  did. 
We  find  that  the  Apostles  retired  to  the  background 
here.  Church  under  guidance  of  H.  S.  was  in  advance 
of  the  Apostles.  The  facts  of  the  churcli  were  before  the 
doctrines.  Historically,  the  life  of  the  church  outran  the 
Apostles.  They  conveyed  divine  sanction  to  what  vv-as 
already  done.  Design  was  to  train  the  church  to  be  in- 
dependent of  the  Apostles — allowed  healthful  growth  in 
the  church.  Advanced  teaching  was  to  result  in  Stephen's 
death  -he  was  to  be  the  martyr,  and  not  Peter.  The  nar- 
rowness of  Peter's  mind  gave  him  influence  among  the 
Jews.  Now  a  more  intellectual  element  asserts  itself. 
Hellenistic  circles  were  more  liberal  and  cultured.  Ste- 
phen's position  is  intermediate  between  Peter  and  Paul. 
Advance  on  Peter  not  merely  in  points  of  doctrine,  but 
in  the  tendency  of  his  whole  teaching.  He  sees  the 
destruction  of  Jewish  worship,  but  does  not  yet  declare 
abrogation   of  circumcision,  and  is   not   so  full  as  Paul. 


43 

His  speech  suits  its  historical  position — it  is,  therefore,  a 
transitional  discourse.  Doctrine  and  history  parallel. 
Desitrn  was  to  gii\u  the  Jews.  Did  not  preach  the  cutting 
oft' the  Jews  as  Paul,  as  it  was  not  suitahle  for  the  time. 
It  wotikl  have  increa.>*ed  persecution.  Church  was  not 
ready  to  understand  till  fact  of  calling  the  Gentiles  was 
accomplished. 

Skeptics  make  Luke  the  author  of  the  S|»eech.  They 
ohject  :  1,  That  the  speech  is  artificial  in  arrangement. 
2.  It  is  jjremature  and  Pauline  in  doctrine.  3.  How 
could  his  speec;h  he  preserved  ?  These  difficulties  apply 
to  all  these  discourses.  A  view  of  its  historical  position 
answers  these  ohjections.  There  are  two  questions  here  : 
1.  Did  Stephen  finish  his  argument,  or  was  he  inter- 
rujited  hy  the  judges  ?  He  stops  the  history  with  David, 
hut  he  is  not  relating  history  for  its  own  sake.  He  had 
arrived  at  the  highest  point  of  the  national  history,  and 
had  completed  liis  argument.  Peivsonal  application  made 
proves  that  he  had  finished.  2.  Was  his  death  judicial, 
or  by  a  mob  ?  There  is  no  sentence  recorded,  and  it  is 
said,  that  the  narrative  reads  like  a  description  of  mob 
violence.  On  the  other  hand,  it  was  a  regular  court,  a 
legal  trial  as  in  case  of  Christ.  Violence  is  caused  by 
Jewish  prejudice.  How  came  the  Sanhedrin  to  have 
power  of  death  sentence  ?  (Jno.  18  :  31.)  But  the  policy 
of  the  Roman  government  was  mild.  First  martyr,  and 
the  only  one  upon  whom  stress  is  laid.  An  instance  of 
divine  support  to  martyrs.  The  description  here  is  ex- 
quisite— his  tiice  was  radiant  like  an  angel.  "Fell 
asleep."  Direct  contrast  between  his  mode  of  death  and 
the  tumult  of  the  infuriated  populace.  Prayed  to  Jesus — 
committed  his  spirit  to  Jesus,  v.  56.  Only  place  title 
"  Son  of  Man  "  used  in  N.  T.  except  by  Christ  Himself. 
In  most  cases  Christ  is  represented  as  sittinfj.  but  here  as 
standing  on  right  hand  of  God.  This  incident  must  have 
made  a  great  impression  upon  Saul,  who  was  standing 
by.     Stephen  has  been  called  the  forerunner  of  Paul. 

Ditficulties.  This  passage  is  parallel  to  the  0.  T. 
Hence  the  ap[»arent  ditficulties  of  which  skeptics  make 
the  most.  In  v.  2,  Abraham  is  said  to  have  been  called 
before,   and  in  Gen.   12 :  7,  after  he  dwelt  in   Haran. 


44 

But  the  call  was  repeated,  Gen.  15  :  7.  In  v.  4,  it  is  said 
that  he  came  into  Canaan  wlien  his  father  died.  But 
(Gen.  11  :  26-32)  Terali  lived  60  years  after  Ahraham 
left  Haran.  But  his  age  was  given  when  the  eldest  son 
was  born.  (See  Alexander  on  Acts,  Vol.  1,  p.  258.) 
Compare  v.  5  with  Gen.  11  :  26-32.  In  v.  14,  it  is  said 
that  the  number  wdiieh  came  out  of  Egvpt  was  75  souls, 
which  agrees  with  tlie  nun)ber  given  in  LXX.,  but  in 
the  Hebrew  the  round  number  70  is  given.  Dr.  Alex- 
ander proposes  three  probable  wa^-s  of  accounting  for 
this  variation.  (See  Commentary  on  Acts.)  In  v."l6,  it 
is  said  that  the  bones  of  the  Patriarchs  were  buried  in 
a  field  which  "  Abraham  bought  of  sons  of  Emmor,"  but 
in  Gen.  33:  9,  Jacob  is  said"  to  have  bought  the  field. 
v.  23.  Age  of  Moses  when  he  returned  to  Egypt  not 
found  in  6.  T. — exegesis  of  v.  43.  There  is  only  one 
case  of  all  these  difficulties,  the  explanation  of  which  is 
not  easy,  and  as  to  this,  our  judgment  may  fairly  be  held 
in  suspense. 

This  closes  the  First  Period.  The  details  are  full  and 
skillfully  selected.  We  have  seen  the  origin  and  progress 
of  persecution.  Church  has  increased  by  receiving  ele- 
ments from  all  classes.  The  doctrines  of  Peter's  dis- 
courses are  not  inconsistent  with  Paul's.  The  corres- 
pondence is  too  striking,  say  the  skeptics.  In  the  epistles 
we  find  Paul  and  Peter  in  dispute.  They  find  a  difficulty 
in  the  foct  that  Peter  teaches  in  Acts  some  of  Paul's 
doctrines.  Paul  teaches  Christ  as  u^oc  deou  and  Peter  as 
Ttaci:  deou — both  speak  of  death  and  resurrection,  but 
Peter  as  foretold,  and  esjiecially  of  resurrection.  Paul 
brings  out  the  death  as  foundation  of  Christianity — 
repentance  and  faith— justification  by  faith.  Both  teach 
that  Jews  and  Gentiles  should  receive  the  Gospel,  but 
Peter  thought  they  liad  first  to  come  within  the  pale  of 
Judaism. 

Pilate  is  removed  from  office  86  A.  D.  Tiberius  died 
in  37  A.  D.,  and  the  new  emperor  Caligula  appointed 
Marcellus  procurator.  Pilate  had  incurred  the  serious 
displeasure  of  the  Jews  during  his  tyrannical  rule.  Mar- 
cellus indulged  tlie  Jews,  and  this  led  to  a  greater  perse- 
cution of  the  Christiana.     Caligula's  policy  w^as  to  deify 


46 

himself,  and  fortius  purpose  he  had  -statues  of  himself 
erected  all  over  the  empire.  This  led  to  the  violent  op- 
position of  Jews.  The  attitude  of  the  civil  power  was 
favorable  to  tlie  extension  of  the  extra-Palestinian  church, 
hut  favor  to  the  Jews  permitted  persecution  of  Christians 
at  home. 


SECTION  2.— EXTP]N8rON  OF  THE  WORK  FROM 
JERUSALEM  TO  ANTIOCII. 

CHAPTERS    VIII-Xll. 

I,  The  Preparation  for  Gentile  Missions  [VIII:  1- 
4]  is  found  in  the  dispersion  which  followed  the  third 
persecution,  vs.  1-4.  V.  2  contains  account  of  Stephen's 
burial.  The  epithet  "devout  men"  is  nowhere  applied  to 
Christians.  It  probably  refers  to  Jews  who  had  no  sym- 
pathy with  the  violent  measures  against  Stephen.  In  v. 
1  the  term  ixxk/jaio.  is  first  used  in  Acts.  It  is  taken 
here  in  local  sense,  because  it  occurs  at  the  beginning 
of  tlie  [)eriod,  when  organizations  began  to  be  formed 
elsewhere  than  at  Jerusalem,  after  this  model  of  the  body 
first  organized  at  Pentecost. 

The  ])ersecuti(yn  was  severe.  The  anxiety  and  jealousy 
of  priests  and  Jews  was  very  great.  The  first  martyrdom 
seems  to  have  intensified  the  opposition.  Saul  was  dis- 
tinguished by  his  furious  zeal,  lie  made  havoc — ravaged 
the  church,  going  from  house  to  house.  Murders 
were  committed  (26  :  10),  neither  age  nor  sex  was  respect- 
ed. There  was  public  punishment  in  the  synagogues. 
Christians  were  compelled  to  blaspheme.  The  immediate 
result  of  the  persecution  was  that  the  community  was 
scattered  throughout  Judea  and  Samaria,  though  the 
organization  was  not  destroyed.  Before  this  time  there 
wa3  no  disposition  to  leave  Jerusalem.  No  missionary 
spirit  liad  as  yet  appeared.  They  were  at  this  time  forced 
by  Providence  into  the  world  for  the  spread  of  the  gos- 
pel. The}'  learned  that  Jei'usalem  was  no  longer  to  be 
their  Zion.  By  the  dispersion  they  learned  the  divine 
plan.  They  were  "all  scattered."  Rationalists  (Baur) 
say- TTcfj/rec  means  Hellenists.     But  this  would  leave  the 


46 

church  in  Jerusalem  entirely  Judiiistic,  which  is  contrary 
to  Pauline  type,  Banms^arten  says  7idvz£^  refers  to  the 
congregation  about  Stephen  on  the  day  of  his  death. 
The  common  view  makes  Trd^'ve^  hyperbolical  for  "most" 
or  "many."  Some  must  have  stayed  behind,  as  Paul 
made  havoc  of  the  church  after  the  dispersion.  IJAtju 
zibv  \^7:oar6Mov  is  by  some  taken  as  additional  proof  that 
the  persecution  was  only  Hellenistic.  Others  say  it  is 
foreign  to  the  text.  Its  real  significance  appears  in  the 
fact  that  the  Apostles  had  no  command  to  depart.  They 
did  not  leave  through  fear,  because  persecution  had  been 
foretold.  Besides,  the  divine  purpose  was  carried  out  in 
the  founding  of  the  Gentile  church  without  the  interven- 
tion of  the  Apostles,  who  u})  to  this  time  had  Judaistic 
conceptions  of  the  work.  As  to  the  manner  in  which 
the  Apostles  were  spared,  notldng  is  known.  Some 
suppose  they  were  regarded  with  awe,  but  all  that  appears 
in  the  narrative  is  that  they  were  spared.  Those  scat- 
tered went  everywhere  preacliing.  Conversions  were 
effected  and  churches  founded  through  individuals. 

This  period  is  one  of  transition  between  the  mother 
churcli  and  the  works  of  Paul.  (Ch.  18.)  Its  length, 
about  eight  years.  Everything  recorded  in  it  has  a  ref- 
erence to  Paul's  future  work,  and  in  it  various  changes 
were  effected  which  made  his  work  possible.  The  church 
was  gradually  educated  to  the  work  of  Gentile  missions. 
Stages  in  this  preparation  appear:  (1.)  In  the  formation 
of  the  opinion  especially  among  Hellenists,  that  Judaism 
was  to  be  abolished.  (2.)  In  the  conversion  of  Gentiles 
prior  to  the  sending  of  missionaries.  They  were  in  the 
first  instance  introduced  into  the  church  without  formal 
action  on  their  own  part  or  that  of  the  Apostles.  Their 
reception  without  circumcision  was  sanctioned  by  the 
vision  of  Peter  in  the  case  of  Cornelius,  though  it  was 
not  sanctioned  by  the  whole  church,  and  finally  an- 
nounced till  some  years  later.  (3.)  In  the  great  widen- 
ing of  the  basis  of  the  church,  Syria,  (Damascus,)  Sama- 
ria, Judea,  Arabia  and  Rome,  received  the  Word.  (4.) 
In  the  preparation  of  the  man  for  the  work  (Paul,)  as  the 
age  had  been  preparing  for  him. 


47 

The  history  is  not  n  full  narrative,  but  illustrates  by 
striking  examples.  The  work  in  Samaria  and  the  narra- 
tive of  Philip  and  the  Eunuch  are  typical. 

II.  First  Extension  to  Samaria  under  Philip.  Ch. 
VIII:  4-26.  This  brinies  into  the  narrative  an  entire 
change  of  scene,  and  introduces  to  a  heathen  community. 
Pliilip,  the  agent,  is  mentioned  ne.xt  to  Stephen  in  the  list 
of  deacotis,  and  appears  to  have  been  like  liim  in  general 
qualifications.  The  place  to  which  Philip  went  is  in  A. 
V.  called  "the  city  of  Samaria."  B.  and  Cod.  Sin.  give 
the  article,  but  the  weight  of  evidence  is  against  it.  The 
place  designated  is  by  some  regarded  as  Sychar,  and  by 
others  as  Saniaria.  But  from  vs.  9,  14,  the  designation 
applies  to  the  whole  district.  V.  25  also  indicates  that 
the  whole  province  was  evangelized.  This  rapidity  of 
the  spread  of  the  (Gospel  among  Samaritans  is  due  (1)  To 
their  previous  knowledge  of  the  Scriptures.  They  wor- 
shiped Jehovah  and  (John  4  :  25)  expected  the  .Messiah. 
(2)  To  their  knowledge  of  the  life  and  death  of  Christ. 
The  memory  of  His  visit  to  tiiem  was  also  in  their  minds. 
As  they  heard  Him  gladly  then,  they  would  now  he  wil- 
ling to  listen  to  Ilis  followers.  Their  susceptibility  is 
shown  by  the  easy  triumphs  of  Simon  Magus. 

Relation  to  Cornelius.  The  relation  of  these  Samaritan 
converts  to  the  conversion  of  Cornelius  is  a  matter  of 
importance.  Three  opinions  are  held  about  it.  (1)  Cor- 
nelius was  the  first  Gentile  received  withoutcircnmcision, 
for  the  Samaritans  were  received  as  circumcised  and 
worsliipers  of  Jehovah.  (2)  Intermediate:  Those  who 
hold  that  preaching  to  the  Gentiles  could  be  done  first 
only  by  the  Apostles,  as  in  the  case  of  Cornelius,  say  that 
the  Samaritans  were  not  strict  heathen,  but  occupied  an 
intermediate  position.  Peter  might,  therefore,  go  so  far 
as  to  receive  them  after  tliey  had  already  received  the 
Word  under  Philip.  (8)  The  estimate  which  was  made 
of  the  Samaritans  indicates  that  they  were  virtually  Gen- 
tiles. They  were  excluded  from  tlie  temple  and  classed 
among  Gentiles  both  in  O.  T.  and  N.  T.  Christ  forbade 
the  disciples  to  go  into  any  of  their  villages,  and  Ilia  own 
visit  was  an  exception.  Ue  called  the  breach  between 
them  and  the  Jews  greater  than  that  between  Jews  and 


48 

Gentiles.  They  were  practically  in  the  place  of  heathen, 
and  therefore  Cornelius  was  not  the  first  Gentile  convert. 
The  wall  of  exclnsiveness  was  broken  down.  Jew  and 
Gentile  were  one.  The  reception  of  tlie  Gentiles  is  thus 
due,  not  to  the  agency  of  the  Apostles,  but  to  the  inward 
growth  of  the  cl)urch.  It  was  later  merely  contirrnedby 
the  Apostles.  This  idea  of  the  spontaneous  reception 
of  Gentiles  is  contirnied  by  Ch.  11  :  19,  20.  Two  par- 
ties, Jews  and  Hellenists,  seem  to  liave  arisen  and  exerted 
their  influence.  These  vs.  do  not  show  the  chronologi- 
cal relation  of  the  context,  the}'  refer  back  to  time  of 
Stephen's  death.  The  Gospel  was  preached  to  the  Jews, 
and  according  to  T.  R.  to  the  'EUr^ueazd^.  If  this  read- 
ing, supported  by  B.  E.  G.  H.  be  correct,  the  verse  con- 
tradicts the  above  mode  of  the  spread  of  the  Word.  The 
other  reading  ' EUr^va::  is  sujtported  by  A.  D.  and  the  only 
coherent  reading  of  Cod.  Sin.  It  is  also  formed  by  the 
internal  argument,  as  it  was  Jiothing  new  that  the  gospel 
should  be  preached  to  the  'A7//jv;<T-ac.  The  alterations 
in  MSS.  on  this  verse  are  explained  by  the  desire  to 
maintain  the  position  of  the  Apostles  as  first  preachers 
to  Gentiles.  The  weight  of  authority  thus  favors 
"  Greeks  "  and  the  argument  is  confirmed  that  the  ex- 
tension of  the  church  was  due  to  its  inward  life  and  not 
to  the  Apostles.  This  constituted  the  advance  in  the 
church's  work.  It  seems  inconceivable  that  the  large 
body  of  Christians  should  confine  its  labors  to  Jerusalem. 
A  special  revelation  to  Peter  afterwards  confirmed  the 
work  among  the  Gentiles.  Cornelius  is  the  typical  not 
the  first  example.  He  is  brought  forward  to  show  the 
divine  authority  for  what  the  church  had  already  done. 
This  process  shows  that  history  or  providence  is  [)rior  to 
doctrine,  opens  the  way  to  the  doctrine  of  justification 
by  faith,  and  thus  prepares  the  way  for  Paul's  teachings 
on  the  method  and  ai)plication  of  salvation. 

The  part  taken  by  the  Apostles  after  the  work  began  con- 
firmed it.  The  mother  church  recognized  the  conversions 
in  Samaria,  and  sent  down  Peter  and  John,  two  of  the 
most  eminent  men  of  their  body,  who  gave  the  work  the 
divine  sanction.  In  this  wa}'  was  shown  the  authority 
of  the  Apostles  and   the   spiritual   life   and   unity  of  the 


49 

clinrch.  The  inipartitirj  f)f  the  Holy  Ghost  by  the  Apos- 
tles with  the  laying  on  of  liands  is  variously  explained. 
(1.)  The  I'itnalistic  viuw  makes  it  the  ceremony  of  Coii- 
tirmation.  The  jtower  of  imparting  the  S[)irit  ht'Ionged 
to  the  Apostles  only,  according  to  this  view.  The  objec- 
tion to  this  view  is,  that  according  t(^  it  these  converts 
had  already  been  baptized  and  hence  saved,  before  the 
coming  of  the  Apostles.  (2.)  Neander  distingnishes  be- 
tween the  intellectual  faith  which  each  convert  Dossessed 
at  baptism,  and  the  spiritual  faith  whicii  they  did  not  have 
till  I'eter  and  John  came  with  the  gift  of  the  Holy  Ghost. 
(3.)  Dr.  Alexander  makes  the  distinction  between  the 
ordinary  and  extraordinary  intiuences  of  the  spirit,  i.  e., 
charismata.  The  one  theconverts  had  when  they  believed 
tlie  other  was  given  by  Peter  and  John.  This  view  ia 
coniiiined  by  the  effect  on  Simon  Magus.  He  sani  the 
wf)nders  which  were  done.  This  distinction  between  the 
internal  and  exteiMial  gifts  of  the  Holy  Spirit  is  unusual. 
Bajitism  and  the  gift  of  the  Spirit  are  usually  mentioned 
together.  Several  reasons  appear  for  it.  (1.)  It  was  to 
show  the  distinction  between  true  miracles  and  tricks. 
Subjects  relating  to  the  supernatural  were  attractinor 
attention  anmng  the  Samaritans.  Philip's  miracles  were 
superioi-  to  the  works  of  Simon  xMagus,  but  there  was 
danger  that  tlie  people  would  not  distinguish  between  the 
two.  The  effect  of  Philip's  supernatural  endowments 
being  reserved  till  the  Apostles  came,  would  show  his 
miracles  were  from  God.  (2.)  It  showed  the  difference 
between  the  internal  and  external  gifts  of  the  Sjiirit,  1 
Cor.  12,  shows  a  desire  for.  what  was  external  and  the 
notion  that  the  two  could  not  be  separated.  This  time 
and  i)lace  were  good  for  drawing  this  important  distinc- 
tion. (3.)  It  put  the  Apostles  in  the  proper  place  of  honor 
and  again  demonstrated  the  unity  of  the  church. 

First  Ja'.allicn  opposition. — Simon  Mafias.  As  the  whole 
histor\'  is  typical  in  character,  the  tendencies  of  the  spirit 
of  the  world  jind  the  spirit  of  philosophy  are  presented 
in  conflict  with  Christianity.  These  are  the  chief  sources 
of  opposition  outside  of  Judaism.  In  Judea  the  spirit 
of  the  world  is  manifested  in  the  case  of  Ananias  and 
Sapphira.      In   Samaria  the   philosophical   and   worldly 


50 

spirit  appears  in  the  case  of  S.  Magus.  S.  Mai£us  oeoa- 
sious  the  first  opposition  from  a  iieatlieii  source.  He  is 
of  great  interest  historically.  He  seems  to  have  been  a 
successful  juggler.  Philip  is  shown  to  be  the  worker 
of  true  miracles,  under  the  divine  direction,  by  the  com- 
mand of  God  respecting  his  baptism  of  the  eunuch,  and 
he  gained  greater  inliuence  among  the  people  than  8. 
Magus.  Nationalists  deny  the  supernatural  direction  of 
Philip  and  assert  that  both  he  and  S.  Magus  were  work- 
ing for  the  ascendency  over  the  popular  mind,  that  both 
were  prompted  by  the  devil,  and  that  S.  Magus  being  over- 
come by  Philip  was  baptized.  Simon's  faith  ai)i)ears  to 
have  been  not  genuine  from  his  conduct.  His  desire  to 
purchase  the  gift  of  the  Spirit  wasthefirst  recorded  mani- 
testation  of  what  has  become  historic  under  the  name  of 
simony.  Objection  is  made  to  Peter's  treatment  as 
mild.  Tradition  represents  Simon  as  a  great  heresiarch, 
combining  Oriental  and  Grecian  philosi)phy  with  some 
elements  of  Christianity  into  a  gnosticism.  Justin  Mar- 
tyr says  he  was  from  Gitton  near  ISTablus,  and  Jerome  and 
Irenasus  [C.  and  H.]  mention  him  as  the  originator  of  an 
heretical  sect.  There  is  strong  evidence  that  he  was  a 
philosophical  teacher.  A  dissolute  Gnostic  sect  in  the 
2d  century  called  themselves  Simonians,  of  which  some 
regard  S.  Magus  as  founder.  Tradition  also  says  he 
followed  Peter  to  Rome,  and  Justin  says  he  was  worship- 
ed as  a  god,  and  had  a  column  erected  to  him.  A  pos- 
sible Confirmation  of  the  remark  may  be  found  in  the 
inscription  Simoni  Saiico,  on  the  fragment  of  column  to 
an  Etruscan  deity,  recently  uncov(:red.  He  is  said  to  have 
studied  at  Alexandria  and  to  have  iml)ibed  Alexandrian 
philosophy.  This  system  was  the  same  as  Valentinns'. 
It  held  to  the  doctrine  of  emanations  of  both  sexes  from 
God,  and  the  highest  emanation  was  the  world-soul,  the 
incarnation  of  which  S.  Magus  represented  himself  to 
be.  It  is  even  said  he  pretended  to  be  Christ.  Luke's 
account  seems  to  confirm  the  Gnostic  idea.  He  gave 
out  that  he  was  some  great  one,  and  the  people  regarded 
him  as  the  great  i>Ovver  of  God,  or  according  to  the  sys- 
tem, asoneofthe  highest  emanations  from  deity.  There 
is  ditiiculty  in  deciding  what  is  the  truth  concerning  him. 


51 

He  was  more  than  jiif^glcr,  and  probably  entertained 
rudimentary  Gnostic  ideas.  In  bis  relation  to  Ibe  Gos- 
pel be  is  tyi)ic'al  of  beatben  [)bih)S()pby  in  opposition  to 
Ciiristianity,  as  death  of  Ste[)iien  represents  tbe  bitter- 
ness of  Jmbustie  opposition. 

III.  Pjiilipandtue  KuNUCii.  8:2G-40.  Pbibp,  aft(;r 
his  work  in  Samaria,  was  directed  by  an  ansfel  sontbward 
toward  Gaza,  On  bis  way  lie  met  tbe  ennticb.  Tbe 
interview  and  its  result  ntixt  occupy  tbe  narrative.  Its 
t3[)ical  cbaracter  justities  its  place  at  tins  point  in  tbe 
history.  The  conversion  of  tbe  eunuch  is  significant  of 
tbe  spread  of  tlie  Gos[iel  to  tbe  entls  of  tbe  earth.  He 
represented  tbe  heathen  farthest  removed  from  tbe  , Jews. 
Rationalists  say  that  the  narrative,  though  beautiful,  is 
not  historic.  The  term  fyji^ubyo^  is  ditferently  explained. 
(1)  some  take  it  to  indicate  that  the  man  was  a  proselyte, 
because  he  was  reading  the  Scriptures,  and  had  been  to 
Jerusalem  to  worship.  (2)  Others  think  it  designates 
liim  as  a  court  officer.  (3)  Others  take  the  term  in  its 
ordinary  sense,  and  because  it  makes  tbe  man  a  pagan, 
consider  bis  conversion  as  the  more  remarkable.  Euse- 
bius  says  be  was  tbe  tirst  uncircumcised  heathen  con- 
verted. If  so,  his  conversion  is  another  anticipation  of 
the  typical  case  of  Cornelius.  The  eunuch  was  from 
tbe  island  of  Meroe,  300  miles  up  tbe  Nile,  where  tbe 
Candace  dynasty  reigned,  as  we  learn  from  Strabo  and 
Dion  Cassius.  This  identitication  favors  tbe  third  view, 
and  shows  the  eunuch  as  the  representative  of  the  Gos- 
pel in  f(U'eign  lands.  He  came  tVom  a  wealthy  land,  the 
mart  <jf  the  Indian  trade,  and  as  some  sujjpose,  tbe  country 
of  Sheba.  He  traveled  in  a  chariot,  significant  of  his 
position,  and  read  from  LXX.  A  tradition  makes  him 
tbe  founder  of  the  Ethiopian  church,  though  tliis  origin 
of  the  church  in  that  country  contradicts  history.  Tbe 
passage  be  was  reading  was  Is.  53:  7,  8.  His  ques- 
tion as  to  whom  tl)e  worils  refer,  was  oi'great  interest  then 
as  now.  The  Jews  attempt  to  evade  the  Messianic  ap- 
plication, Tbe  ai^plication  suggested  by  tbe  eunuch  was 
probably  the  one  favored  by  tbe  Rabbinical  authorities  of 
the  time.  He  bad  perliaps  heard  of  Peter's  use  of  it  in 
reference   to   Christ.      The   eunuch   earnestly  but   igiio- 


X 


52 

rantly  reterred  tlie  question  to  Philip,  who  hecanie  liis 
'' ofuide,"  and  "  fireached  unto  hiiu  Jesus."  The  confes- 
sion of  the  eunuch  in  v.  37  is  rejected  l)v  the  ohlest  and 
best  MSS.,and  where  it  is  found,  it  varies  in  foim.  It  is 
however,  as  old  as  the  time  of  Irenpeus,  and  may  liave  been 
inserted  here  as  the  formuhi  for  baptism  to  prevent  too 
hasty  entrance  into  the  church,  as  well  as  to  give  more 
evident  completeness  to  tlie  narrative. 

Philip  went  to  Azotus,  and  probably  founded  tlie 
church  at  the  Greek  Csesarea  on  the  coast.  As  the  result 
of  the  persecution,  the  church  existed  from  Damascus  to 
Azotus, and  this  constitutes  the  first  period  of  preparati(ni 
for  the  work  of  Paul.  The  work  is  now  ready  for  the 
luan. 

IV.  Conversion  OF  Saul.  Ch,  9:  1-30.  This  event 
constitutes  tlie  second  line  of  preparation,  that  of  the 
man  for  the  work.  It  occurs  properly  in  this  part  of  the 
narrative  because  it  is  one  of  tlie  parallel  lines  of  prepa- 
ration. Paul  was  being  prepared  personally,  while  tlie 
church  was  being  made  ready  for  him.  The  time  of  his 
conversion  was  37  or  38  A.  I).,(cf.  chronoh^ii-y)  but  it  did 
not  occur  subsequent  to  the  work  of  P]iili[t  in  Samaria. 
These  two  events  are  not  successive.  The  connection  of 
the  narrative  of  the  conversion  is  with  ch.  7:  59  and  8: 
1-3.  The  persecution  had  disajipointed  its  own  end  : 
It  spread  the  church,  and  so  the  persecutors  were  oldiged 
to  follow.  Paul  as  a  })ersecutor  was  following  it  to  Da- 
mascus with  letters  of  authority  from  the  High  Priest, 
who  was  at  this  time  Theophilus  (37 — 42  A.  D.)  Damas- 
cus was  at  this  time  under  Aretas,  king  of  Arabia,  2 
Cor.  11 :  32.  How  it  was  jjossible  at  this  ti  me  for  a  foreign 
ruler  to  be  in  [>ossession  of  such  a  city  on  Roman  ter- 
ritory, appears  from  the  knowledge  we  iiave  of  the  ill 
feeling  between  Aretas  and  Herod  Antipas,  because 
Herod  liad  repudiated  his  wife,  who  was  the  king's  daugh- 
ter. Tlie  withdrawal  of  the  Roman  army  under  Vitellius 
gave  Aretas  oj)portunity  to  occupy  Damascus.  His 
actual  possession  is  conlirmed  by  the  fact  tliut  noRr.man 
coins  of  Damascus  are  found  in  the  reigns  of  Caligula 
and  Claudius,  while  coins  of  Augustus  and  Tiberius,  and 
again  of  Nero  and  his  successors,  imply  that   Damascus 


53 

wa.s  Roman.  The  coins  of  Aretas,  bearinij  tlu'  inscrip- 
tion [-iaatlzM^  \li)sz()0  ^r/£///^voc,  J^'e  1)V  t^ome  taken  to  con- 
tirni  the  Arabian  possession,  thoujjh  what  the  inscription 
means,  is  not  clear. 

The  conversion  of  Saul  is  made  prominent  in  the 
narrative.  He  was  a  new  man  for  a  new  work,  an  a<hli- 
tional  Apostle  for  cari-yini!:  the  (iospel  to  the  Gentiles. 
God  works  by  adajitations.  The  twelve  represented  Ju- 
daism, and  the  successors  of  tlie  ancient  history.  They 
were  influenced  by  their  education,  and  did  not  possess 
the  materials  for  a  Paul.  Paul  makes  the  contrast  be- 
tween himself  as  a  |)ersecutor  and  an  Apostle.  He  was 
thus  s|)ecially  lifted  for  liis  intended  work  by  the  fact 
that  liis  conversion  took  place  just  at  the  time  wlien  the 
new  line  of  work  beij:an.  The  chani^e  in  him  was  intel- 
lectual as  well  as  spiritual.  The  doctrine  had  to  be  esti- 
mated and  systematized.  It  was  necessary  that  he  should 
be  free  from  the  doctrinal  prejudice  of  the  early  Chris- 
tian church.  The  special  fitness  of  Paul,  however,  im- 
plies no  fraud  in  the  other  Apostles.  Peter  be<^an  the 
work  in  Palestine.  James  (continued  the  movement  in 
Judea  and  esjiecially  in  Jerusalem.  John  was  reserved 
till  the  union  of  Jews  and  Gentiles  to  record  the  testi- 
mony of  C'hrist  coiicernini!;  himself,  and  to  hand  down 
the  orij^anized  church  to  the  times  of  the  ordinary  influ- 
ence and  [)resence  of  the  Holy  Sj)ii-it.  Paul's  specific 
work  was  to  carry  the  Gospel  to  the  Gentiles,  and  for  this 
he  was  specially  fitted  by  liis  personal  qualifications 
There  was  the  necessary  time  for  his  preparation  before 
he  came  to  his  mission.  He  was  a  greiiter  bigot  than 
Gamaliel,  Acts  5  :  34-3!),  and  22  :  4.  He  came  "to  Jeru- 
salem |)robably  at  the  a<j^e  ot  13,  (Con.  and  How.)  Cf.  ch, 
21:  39 — 22:  3.  During  the  life  of  Christ  he  was  in  Tarsus, 
lie  had  careful  religious  trainingall  his  life,  and  received 
a  libei-al  Greek  education  in  Tarsus,  which  was  the  third 
city  in  the  world,  standing  next  to  Alexandria  and  Athens 
in  intellectual  pre-eminence.  After  his  Greek  training 
he  went  to  Jerusalem  to  receive  the  Hebrew  culture. 
Besides  his  intellectual  and  religious  culture,  he  learned 
a  trade,  according  to  the  custom  of  tiie  time.  He  was  a 
tent    makei-.      In    its    civil    relations  Tarsus    was   not  a 


54 

miinicipium,  Jior  a  colonia,  but  an  iirbs  libera.  As  such 
it  possessed  certain  privileges  of  self-ijovernment,  but 
its  citizens  not  on  this  account  possess  the  Civitas 
Roniana.  Paul's  citizenship  was  a  family  distinction 
conferred  originally,  it  is  supposed,  for  some  unknown 
consideration,  such  as  money  paid  or  services  rendered 
the  government. 

The  typical  importance  of  Paul's  conversion  is  great. 
The  church  is  to  be  instructed  by  it.  The  outward  signs 
accompanying  it  were  as  remarkable  as  the  inward  re- 
sults. The  reasons  for  the  miraculous  in  it  are  various. 
(1)  It  was  necessar}'  to  constitute  Paul  a  witness  of  the 
resurrection,  witness-bearing  being  the  cliief  element  in 
an  Apostle's  work.  (2)  It  was  necessary  to  attest  his 
immediate  divine  call.  He  was  chosen  without  the 
agency  of  the  churcli  oi'  the  other  Apostles.  (3)  The 
miraculous  was  needed  to  produce  a  profound  sense  in 
his  own  mind  of  tlie  divine  call.  It  was  not  for  Ijim  as 
an  individual  or  an  ordinary  convert,  but  for  liim  as  an 
Apostle.  His  testimony  concerning  Christ  was  subse- 
quent to  tliat  of  tiie  other  Apostles,  and  hence  was  new 
corroborative  proof  of  tlie  resurrection.  Tlie  skeptics 
say  that  the  conversion  of  Paul  was  feigned,  in  Ids  enthu- 
siasm to  advance  his  own  ends.  But  the  manner  of  it 
takes  away  tlie  suspicion  of  liypocris}'  on  the  part  of 
Christians.  His  call  was  evidently  from  God.  Its  effect 
on  his  own  mind  was  tot^  great  to  be  artificial.  Whether 
he  had  been  already  in  doubt  as  to  the  resurrection  and 
tlie  persecution,  or  whether,  as  seems  to  have  been  the 
case,  his  change  was  instantaneous,  from  an  unquestion- 
ing conviction  that  he  was  right,  in  the  conflicts  later  in 
his  life  his  faith  was  strengthened  by  the  manner  of  his 
conversion.  In  this  experience  the  oi'dinary  process  is 
reversed.  Men  usually  find  greater  comfort  from  expe- 
rience which  comes  after  conversion  and  confirms  it. 
Paul's  conviction  of  liis  divine  call  was  confirmed  by 
subsequent  visions.  Three  accounts  of  liis  conversion 
arc  given.     Ch.  9  :  3-19  ;  22  :  3-16  ;  26  :  9-21. 

Discrepancies  are  alleged.  (1)  In  9:7  it  is  said,  the 
men  heard  but  did  not  see.  In  22  :  9,  the  men  saw  but 
did  not  hear.     (2)  In  9:7  the  men  are  said  to  have  stood, 


55 

and  Paul  to  liave  fallen.  In  26  :  14  all  are  ^<aid  to  luive 
fallen.  Explanation  :  There  was  no  necessity  in  their 
seein<;  Christ  or  heariiiii^  his  words  to  Paul.  What  is 
recorded  indicates  that  they  saw  a  light  l)nt  not  a  person, 
and  heard  a  voice  but  not  the  words.  Besides,  the  words 
may  be  regarded  as  giving  a  general  statement — an 
imperfect  sense — and  in  the  case  of  the  hitter  seeming 
inconsistency,  they  may  indicate  successive  stages  in  the 
event,  e.  g.,  all  fell  at  iirst,  then  all  rose  save  Paul. 
Another  discrepancy  is  charged  in  22  :  14,  15,  and  26  : 
16-18,  where  the  same  i(]eas  are  put  into  the  mouth  of 
Christ  and  Ananias.  But  there  is  no  contradiction. 
Christ  spoke  by  Ananias,  or  both  may  have  uttered  the 
same  words.  The  account  before  Agrippa,  ch.  26,  is 
al)ridged.  Thecommission  was  the  same,  whethertlirough 
Christ  or  Ananias.  The  vision  was  sent  to  Ananias  as  a 
Christian  to  attest  the  conversion  of  Paul,  as  no  one 
would  have  i"eccived  him  without  some  such  confirma- 
tion Amvnias  being  a  man  of  good  i-epute  and  zealous 
for  the  law  (22  :  12)  was  fitted  to  introduce  I'aul  to  the 
church.  Paul's  blindness  and  restoration  to  sight  were 
typical  oftlie  inward  change,  and  formed  l)asis  for  the 
metaphors  used  later  by  liim  in  descril)ing  his  conversion. 
Controrersy  about  the  s^iipernntiiral  elemevt.  The  central 
point  in  the  conversion  of  Paul  was  tiie  glory  of  the 
ascended  Christ.  Tlie  supernatural  is  an  essential  element 
in  it.  The  dilemma  of  the  rationalists  is  to  do  away  with 
the  supernatural.  They  affirm  that  the  main  facts  of 
Paul's  life  are  in  the  admitted  epistles  witliout  the  super- 
natural element.  They  exaggerate  the  influence  of  Paul 
by  attributing  to  him  what  was  really  the  work  of  Christ, 
and  they  account  for  the  spread  of  the  church  by  the 
peculiar  genius  and  character  of  the  times.  Paul  is 
admitted  to  be  a  historical  character,  and  bis  epi-tlesare 
regarded  as  the  only  genui'ie  account  of  the  history  of 
the  church.  If  this  be  so,  and  the  gospels  are  to  be  thus 
ignored,  there  was  no  original  history  of  Christ,  aud 
according  to  them,  it  was  necessary  later  that  Paul  should 
introduce  the  su[)ei'natui-al  into  the  origin  of  Christianity, 
and  hence  we  have  the  origin  of  the  Acts.  But  the  great 
difficulty   is   to  account  for  Paul's  conversion  atid   evade 


56 

the  supernatural.  lie  was  a  bitter  persecutor  and  was 
sudflenly  cliano;e(l.  His  conversion  involved  the  idea  of 
the  resurrection  of  Christ.  (1)  The  resurrection  was  not 
due  to  Paul's  natural  enthusiasm,  for  there  was  no  foun- 
dation for  such  a  myth  in  the  Jewisli  idea  of  the  Mes- 
siah or  in  the  Apostle's  mind.  (2)  Visionar_y  theoVv  of 
resnri'ection  will  not  account  for  his  conversion.  This 
involves  tlie  settinjj  aside  of  the  gospels,  and  leaves  no 
witness  among  the  original  twelve,  as  John  in  Ravelation 
only  im[)lies  the  immortality  of  Christ.  It  leaves  Paul 
the  only  witness  of  the  i*esurrection.  Plis  statements  in 
Acts  are  considered  unhist^ric  because  of  their  origin 
later.  Ilis  statements  in  the  four  admitted  ejtistles  con- 
stitute the  only  authority  there  is  foi*  the  resurrection. 
From  these  the  skejitics  admit:  (1)  That  Paul  was  con- 
vinced by  an  apprehension  of  Christ.  1  Cor.  9:1,15: 
3-8;  Gal.  1:12.  But  they  say  that  the  other  Apostles 
had  seen  Christ  in  the  same  way,  and  that  the  apjiear- 
ance  was  due  to  subjective  vision.  Strauss  and  Baur 
say  that  Paul  believed  he  had  seen  ChiMst,  but  that  he 
saw  nothing  objective.  There  was  merely  a  subjective 
change  in  his  mind  similar  to  what  the  other  Apostles 
also  ex])erienced.  In  support  of  this  tlieory  it  must  be 
showii  (1)  That  tlie  elements  of  his  vision  were  clearly  in 
his  mind  ;  (2)  That  tliere  was  something  in  his  mind  to 
occasion  the  vision  suddenly  wliile  he  was  on  the  way  to 
Damascus;  (3)  That  Paul  was  of  a  visionary  turn  of  mind. 
Eacli  of  these  points  the  rationalists  attempt  to  prove. 
(1)  They  say  that  the  dispute  in  Jerusalem  with  Stephen 
concerning  Christ  brought  O.  T.  texts  to  Paul's  mind, 
and  especiallv  those  showing  the  Messiah  as  suffering. 
Isaiah  was  much  in  dispute  between  Jews  and  Christians 
after  the  crucifixion,  2  Cor.  3 :  14,  fl'.  The  O.  T.  and 
persecution  thus  gave  important  elements  to  Paul's  vis- 
ion. Also,  lie  must  himself  have  known  much  oi' Christ's 
teachings  from  those  who  had  seen  him.  Besides,  his 
Pharisaical  culture  predisposed  him  to  the  idea  of  sacri- 
fices. If  there  was  a  kingdom  of  righteousness  it  must 
be  a  sacrificial  righteousness.  He  sympathized,  they  say, 
with  the  ethical  elements  in  Christ's  teaching,  so  that  if 
the  death  of  Christ   did   not  interfere  he  would  receive 


57 

him  as  Messiah.  (2)  Th<'.  suddenness  of  the  change  is 
accounted  for  by  the  remorse  of  Paul.  He  was  on  a 
Journey  of  persecution  that  day.  Or  terror  may  have 
been  caused  by  a  tliunder-storin,  sunstroke,  head-ache, 
pain  in  the  eyes,  or  a  fall  fi-om  his  horse — any  or  several 
of  these  would  bring  his  mind  to  a  crisis  of  reflection, 
and  entirely  change  his  life.  (3)  In  support  of  the  idea 
that  Paul  was  of  a  visionary  turn  of  mind  the  rationalists 
allege  that  he  constantly  refers  to  these  visions  after- 
wards. He  was  supernaturally  sustained  all  his  life,  as 
he  thought.  On  the  occasion  of  one  of  these  visions  he 
states  that  he  did  not  know  whether  he  was  in  or  out  of 
the  body.  He  had  them  at  every  critical  })eriod  of  his 
life,  e.  g.,  the  man  of  Macedonia.  They  claim  that  all 
his  visions  belonged  to  the  same  class,  and  that  therefore 
his  conversion  must  be  attributed  to  the  same  cause. 
This  is  the  turning  point  in  the  discussion.  It  is  an  un- 
warranted assumption  that  the  vision  at  the  conversion 
was  of  the  same  sort  as  came  later.  (1)  Paul  always  dis- 
tinguishes in  after  cases  between  his  immediate  sight  of 
Christ  and  visions.  He  never  says  he  saw  Christ  after- 
wards. His  Apostleship  is  Ijased  on  the  appearance  of 
Christ  at  his  conversion.  (2)  Paul  describes  later  vis- 
ions in  different  tertiis.  2  Cor.  12  :  2  "  He  was  caught 
up,"  and  dared  not  report.  Hence  it  was  not  of  the  same 
sort  as  the  one  at  conversion,  as  given  in  Luke's  three 
accounts  and  Paul's  two.  Notice,  Paul  puts  his\ision 
of  Christ  at  conversion  on  the  same  footing  as  that  ap- 
pearance of  Christ  which  constituted  the  other  Apostles 
witnesses,  and  attested  the  truth  of  the  resurrection  to 
the  500  brethren.  He  appeals  to  those  who  had  seen 
Christ  before  he  did.  If  his  apprehension  had  been 
merely  subjective  he  would  have  been  contradicted.  Of 
this  visionary  theory  in  general  it  may  be  remarked. 
(1)  That  tliougli  it  be  skillful  and  curious  it  is  inade- 
quate. Ordinary  causes  are  gradual.  A  subjective  pro- 
cess will  not  account  for  so  sudden  a  change.  A  change 
from  hatred  to  love  would  not  be  brought  about  by 
obscure  Messianic  prophecies.  Paul  rose  beyond  and 
against  the  teachings  of  his  times.  His  doctrines  cannot 
be  built  upon  so  small  a  basis.     (2)  The  mental  conflict 


58 

18  entirely  an  assumption.  There  is  no  evidence  of  a 
'•leading  np  "  of  the  elements  of  his  Christian  charac- 
ter. There  is  no  evidence  of  doubt  as  to  his  previous 
course,  but  of  clear  convictions  that  he  was  doing  duty 
26:  9.  (3)  The  theory  is  inconsistent  with  the  admitted 
character  of  Paul's  life.  He  is  logical,  clear,  analytical, 
and  yet  is  made  an  enthusiast  and  visionary,  not  knowing 
what  he  is  about.  (4)  The  theory  is  unhi^torical.  It 
makes  Paul  the  originator  of  the  doctrines  and  the  first 
mover  in  the  call  to  the  Gentiles.  But  the  doctrines  had 
all  been  worked  out  of  the  facts  before  the  work  of 
Paul.  He  was  merely  the  formulator  of  the  docti-ines. 
The  church  held  belief  in  the  universality  of  the  new 
dispensation  before  Paul  v,-as  called,  and  he  did  not  enter 
on  his  specific  work  for  years  after  his  conversion.  (5) 
This  Tiibingen  school  makes  the  whole  life  of  Paul  aiid 
of  all  Christians  to  be  based  on  a  delusion.  (6)  The 
confessed  pantheistic  motive  and  philosophical  belief  in 
this  controversy  are  enough  to  prejudice  against  the 
theory.  Its  whole  aim  is  to  overthrow  the  supernatural. 
Some,  as  Baur,  say  the  conversion  is  beyond  their  com- 
prehension and  they  refuse  to  accept  it  because  of  philo- 
sophical prejudice. 

Contradictions  beiiveen  the  Acts  cmd  the  Epistles.  Ajiother 
line  of  strong  ettbrt  with  the  Rationalist*  is  attempt  to 
discover  contradictions  between  the  Acts  and  the  Epistles. 
They  claim  that  the  epistles,  esi)ecially  the  Galatians, 
repi'esent  Paul  as  sent  only  to  the  Gentiles,  and  as  hostile 
to  the  law,  while  Acts  represents  him  as  going  first  to 
Jews,  and  in  a  conciliatory  manner  withholding  his  dis- 
tinctive doctrines.  Galatians,  they  say,  represents  him  as 
the  opponent  of  the  Apostles,  and  as  emphasizing  the 
doctrine  of  justification  b}'  faith,  which  is  not  distinctly 
mentioned  in  words  of  Peter  in  Acts.  As  the  epistles 
are  genuine  and  first  written,  the  points  of  difierence  be- 
tween them  and  Acts  are  fatal.  Acts  must  be  rejected. 
They  attribute  its  origin  to  irenic  designs  between  the 
Petrine  and  Pauline  parties  in  the  church.  This  argu- 
ment is  fundamental  among  the  skeptics.  Gal.  1  :  16-24 
and  Acts  9:19-26  contain  an  alleged  inconsistency. 
According  to  the  latter,  Paul  went  to  Damascus,  stayed 


59 

till  persecution  drove  hiin  out,  preaching  Christ  in  the 
synagogues,  immediately  after  conversion.  It  represents 
Paul  as  beginning  his  ministry  among  the  Jews.  Ac- 
cording to  (Triilatians,  Paul  goes  at  once  to  the  Gentiles, 
into  Arabia  for  the  space  of  three  years.  Method  of 
reconciling:  It  is  not  a  part  of  Luke's  i»Ian  to  give  the 
details  of  Paul's  life,  which  is  only  an  incident  in  the 
progress  Luke  records.  Luke  gives  the  line  of  prepara- 
tion for  his  work — his  conversion,  and  his  call  as  an 
Apostle.  He  mentions  his  delay  at  Antioch  and  Tarsus 
before  the  call  to  his  mission.  But  in  Galatians,  where 
Piinl  is  proving  the  autliority  of  his  Apostleship,  he  must 
go  back  to  the  beginning.  These  ditiiculties  are  natural 
in  the  two  narrations.  But  the  critics  say  Acts  not  only 
omits,  but  does  not  allow  place,  for  the  Arabian  journey. 
There  is,  however,  no  exegetical  difficulty  in  introducing 
the  journej'.  It  may  come  before  ch.  9:10,  or  ch,  9 
between  vs.  19,  20,  or  during  23,  or  Jifter  25.  The  com- 
mon method  is  to  introduce  the  journey  after  v.  25, 
immediately  after  Paul's  escape  from  Damascus.  The 
"many  days"  of  v.  23  would  also  cover  the  whole  period. 
The  omission  of  the  account  of  the  journey  is  no  reason 
for  alleging  that  Luke  was  ignorant  of  it.  Nor  if  he 
were  ignorant  of  it,  could  there  be  charge  brought  against 
his  inspiration,  for  he  leaves  out  many  other  matters. 
The  locality  in  Arabia  to  which  Paul  went  is  unknown. 
If  lie  went  to  Petra^a,  he  would  offend  Aretas.  If  he 
went  to  Ilauran  he  would  encounter  hostile  Ebionites. 
Likewise  his  reason  for  going  is  uncertain.  A  common 
view  is  that  he  went  there  for  a  period  of  preparation. 
No  church  afterward  existed  there  which  he  could  have 
founded,  and  he  did  not  enter  on  the  active  duties  of  his 
work  for  six  or  seven  years  after  his  conversion.  Ano- 
ther view  [iNTeyer]  is  urged  from  the  context  of  Gal.  1: 
17.  It  is  inferred  he  went  immediately  into  Arabia  to 
preach,  as  lie  had  been  doing  in  Damascus  immediately 
after  conversion.  It  seems  reasonable  to  suppose  that  he 
preaclied  wherever  he  went,  for  we  read  of  his  confirming 
churches  in  Cilicia,  after  the  first  visit  to  Tarsus  subse- 
quent to  his  conversion.  If  this  be  so,  it  gives  another 
instance  of  the  preaching  of  the  Gospel   to  the  Gentiles 


60 

before  tlie  conversion  of  Cornelius.  Tlie  period  seems 
to  have  been  characteristically  one  of  pi-eparation.  The 
precise  time  at  which  it  occurred  is  not  known.  Another 
alleged  inconsistency  is  found  in  the  two  accounts  of  the 
first  journey  to  Jerusalem,  Acts  9  :  19-26,  Gal.  1  :  18. 
(1)  In  Gal.  he  is  said  to  have  gone  to  see  Peter,  and  saw 
no  other  Apostle  save  James.  In  Acts  he  is  represented 
as  introduced  to  the  Apostles  by  Barnabas.  (2)  If  he 
spent  three  years  before  going  to  Jerusalem,  the  Apostles 
would  not  have  been  afraid  of liim.  Answer  to  the  first 
objection  is  that  he  was  introduced  to  but  two  Apostles,  or 
"Apostles"  may  be  taken  in  the  loose  sense  of  Apostolic 
men,  though  this  use  of  the  term  may  be  objected  to, 
because  Barnabas  did  introduce  Paul  to  those  who  were 
Apostles  in  the  strict  sense,  and  Paul  claimed  equal 
authority  with  them.  The  second  objection  has  no  basis, 
Paul,  who  had  been  a  persecutor,  came  as  an  Apostle  and 
they  naturally  doubted  his  conversion.  Again  it  is  ob- 
jected that  in  Acts  9  :  28,  29  he  sees  the  Apostles  and 
disputes  in  public,  while  in  Gal.  he  sees  none  save  Peter 
and  James  in  private.  But  here  there  is  no  contradiction 
even  literally.  Gal.  does  not  deny  public  teaching  in  the 
synagogues.  But  the  skeptics  ask  how  Paul  could  avoid 
seeing  the  other  Apostles.  He  was  only  two  weeks  in 
Jerusalem,  an  object  of  suspicion,  and  laboring  among 
the  Hellenists.  Besides,  the  other  Apostles  may  have 
been  away  from  the  city.  Another  alleged  difficulty  is 
found  in  Gal.  1  :  22,  where  Paul  is  said  to  have  been 
unknown  by  face  to  the  churches  of  .ludea,  while  in 
Acts  26  :  20,  he  is  represented  as  preaching  throughout 
the  coasts  of  Judea.  There  again  there  is  no  contradic- 
tion. In  Gal.  he  is  speaking  of  the  origin  of  his  minis- 
try. In  Acts  he  is  giving  a  summary  of  his  whole  life. 
Another  difficulty  :  In  Acts  9:  30  he  is  left  to  his  own 
judgment  to  decide  upon  fleeing  from  persecution.  In 
22  :  17  he  is  represented  as  warned  by  a  vision.  No  con- 
tradiction. The  persecution  warned  him  of  danger,  the 
vision  warranted  his  going.  Other  and  less  important 
objections  are  made. 

Visit  to  Jerusalem.     The  time  of  his  visit  to  Jerusalem 
was  about  three  years   after   his   conversion,  40   A.  D. 


61 

Tlie  reason  for  it  !>it|»earM  in  the  necessity  for  an  nnder- 
standiiiii:  between  him  and  the  other  Apostles.  The  unity 
of  the  church  demanded  it.  Scliism  seemed  imminent 
otherwise.  And  yet  there  was  no  formal  recognition  of 
his  authority,  lest  it  siiould  be  thoui!:ht  he  gained  it  from 
the  Apostles,  instead  of  Christ.  Whether  Paul's  visit 
was  before  the  conversion  of  Cornelius  is  not  knowti,  but 
his  ministry  to  the  Gentiles  was  not  recognized  for 
nearly  two  years  after  he  went  to  Jerusalem,  Gal.  2  :  7. 
When  the  Afiostles  had  seen  his  success,  they  gave  him 
the  right  hand  of  fellowship.  They  came  to  a  recogni- 
tion of  liis  specific  ministry  a  long  while  after  his  call  to 
it.  Paul  was  led  gradually  to  his  work.  No  work  appears 
under  him  among  the  Gentiles  till  seven  years  after  his 
conversion.  He  at  first  seemed  inclined  to  tarry  at  Jeru- 
salem. Several  visions  were  given  to  guide  him.  The 
church  was  being  made  ready.  He  does  not  seem  to  have 
begun  his  distinctively  Apostolic  work  till  Barnabas 
brought  him  to  Antioch.  His  preparation  was  long. 
He  spent  three  years  in  Tarsus  or  Cilicia,  because  he  was 
there  from  40  till  one  year  prior  to  44,  the  date  of  his 
first  journey,  Acts  11:25-26.  There  is  no  account  of 
the  founding  of  the  Cilician  churches,  but  from  15:  41 
it  is  gathered  that  they  were  founded  by  Paul  during  this 
residence  in  Tarsus,  as  no  other  date  for  them  suits  the 
narrative  better.  The  two  lines  of  preparation  appear 
throughout,  that  of  tiie  woi-k  and  the  man,  and  the  agency 
of  God's  [)rovidence  is  seen  in  all. 

V.  The  Conversion  of  Cornelius.  9:  31 — 11:18. 
(1)  Introductory,  ch.  9:31-43.  This  takes  the  history 
back  to  show  the  condition  of  the  Jewish  church,  and  how 
it  had  prospered.  Ch.  11  :  1-18  gives  the  sequel  of  the 
conversion,  in  wliich  Peter  answers  the  objections  urged 
by  the  Jews  against  fellowsliip  with  the  Gentiles,  and 
satisfies  their  minds.  The  two  miracles  in  ch.  9  were 
private  in  their  character,  and  have  no  essential  bearing 
on  the  history.  They  come  in  to  give  us  a  picture  of  the 
Jewisli  church  prior  to  the  commencement  of  the  great 
work  of  Paul.  It  was  important  that  it  should  not  be 
forgotten.  As  a  result  of  the  miracles  the  churches  grew. 
The  narrative  represents  them  at  this  point  as  receiving 


©2 

many  accessions,  and  shows  this  to  he  the  reason  for 
selectinoj  and  recording  these  two  miracles.  The 
"churches"  also,  9 :  31,  had  rest  or  peace.  Instead  of 
the  plural,  however,  Cod.  Sin.  A.  B.and  C.  read  "church," 
and  if  this  be  adopted  it  signities  the  essential  unity  of 
the  body.  That  the  church  had  peace  at  this  time  indi- 
cates its  internal  unity  at  the  time  of  its  enlargement,  a 
fact  requiring  distinct  recognition.  By  the  A.  V.  the  con- 
nection of  this  verse  is  lost.  It  apparently  refers  to  the 
conversion  of  Paul,  and  gives  the  idea  that  the  rest  and 
increase  resulted  from  the  change  in  him.  But  the  verse 
does  not  refer  to  Paul.  He  had  himself  suffered  in  the 
persecutions  which  he  raised.  His  influence  could  not 
account  for  such  increase.  The  verse,  therefore,  is  to  be 
taken  in  connection  with  the  narrative  of  Stephen's 
death.  It  begins  anew  paragraph  in  the  history.  Addi- 
tional reason  for  this  connecting  of  v.  31  may  be  found 
by  remembering  that  Peter's  tour  of  visitation  was  prior 
to  Paul's  visit  to  Jerusalem,  three _years  after  his  conver- 
sion, Gal.  1  :  18.  Tlie  peace  existed  before  Paul's  recog- 
nition by  Peter  and  the  other  Apostles.  This  fact  also 
shows  that  Peter's  change  of  mind  was  not  due  to  the 
influence  of  Paul.  The  conversion  of  Cornelius  was 
before  Peter  met  Paul.  The  persecution  was  lessened 
because  the  disciples  were  driven  from  Jerusalem  and 
scattered.  Besides,  peace  for  the  church  resulted  from  a 
change  in  the  Roman  policy.  Caligula,  (37-40)  the  ruling 
emperor,  was  at  flrst  mild  toward  the  Jews,  but  became 
cruel,  and  called  for  the  visit  of  Philo  on  behalf  of  his 
persecuted  countrymen.  While  the  Jews  were  suffering 
the  Christians  were  left  in  comparative  peace.  Evidence 
of  the  peaceful  condition  appears  (1)  In  Peter's  tour  of 
visits.  (2)  From  the  formation  of  churches  in  Saron, 
(Acts  9:32,)  not  previously  mentioned.  (3)  In  the  grace 
of  the  primitive  church  manifested  in  the  case  of  Tabitha. 
(4)  In  the  conversion  of  the  people  resulting  from  con- 
spicuous, miracles  e.  g.,  the  conversion  of  Eneas  and  rais- 
ing of  Tabitha.  Ch."9:43  indicates  that  Peter's  Jewish 
prejudices  had  been  mitigated.  Simon's  trade  was  con- 
sidered unclean  by  the  Jews.  Peter's  residence  with  him 
is  significant  of  the  immediately  future  policy  of  the 
church. 


63 

(2.)  The  Convkrhion.  Chapter  10  opens  with  the  con- 
version of  Cornelius,  the  event  vvhiclifi^ivve  divine  sanction 
to  the  admission  of  the  Gentiles,  and  prepared  tlie  way 
for  missions.  Its  importance  appears  in  its  averting 
schism.  Some  Gentiles  liad  already  been  received,  and 
the  time  of  crisis  concernini;  their  rii^ht  to  enter  tlie 
church  had  now  come.  Both  the  Apostles  and  the  Jews 
must  be  instructed.  An  Apostle,  therefore,  first  has  it 
revealed  to  him  that  the  church  is  to  be  gathered  from 
the  uncircnmcision  as  well  as  the  circumcision.  The 
conversion  of  Cornelius  was,  however,  the  confirmation, 
fiot  the  initiation  of  Gentile  reception.  That  he  was  the 
tirst  uncircumcised  heathen  received  is  still  held,  but 
various  opinions  exist  on  the  matter.  Lechler,  Alford, 
Schaff,  Banmgarten  give  cotitradictory  views  on  this  mat- 
ter, maintaining  that  the  conversion  occurred  prior  to  the 
accessions  to  the  church  at  Antioch.  But  it  does  not 
appear  that  the  conversion  came  bel'ore  the  work  at 
Antioch.  There  was  no  connection  between  the  two 
events.  One  occurred  in  Palestine  at  Coesarea  under 
Peter,  the  oth^r  far  north,  under  other  preachers,  after 
Peter  went  back  to  Jerusalem.  Besides,  the  movement 
at  Antioch  was  at  iirst  directed  specially  to  the  Jews, 
that  at  Ccesarea  to  the  Gentiles.  The  misconception  as 
to  C/ornelius  being  the  iirst  heathen  convert  arises  from 
tiie  fact  that  Luke  records  it  first,  and  from  the  assump- 
tion that  the  Apostles  must  originate  every  movement. 
"  The  case  of  Cornelius  is  in  no  causal  relation  to  tlie 
entrance  of  Gentiles."  [Neander.]  The  Hellenists  first 
made  their  way  among  the  Gentiles,  and  gave  them  the 
Gospel.  The  importance  of  the  conversion  leads  to  great 
circumstantiality  in  its  narration.  The  conversion  is 
thrice  told,  the  vision  thrice  repeated,  wydle  the  conver- 
sion of  the  5000  at  Pentecost  is  mentioned  in  a  single 
sentence.  The  miraculous  is  made  prominent,  because  a 
Jew  would  not  give  u})  his  exclusive  privileges  without 
clear  evidence  of  the  divine  will. 

The  selection  of  the  persons  concerned  is  significant.  Peter 
was  a  recognized  leader  in  the  Jewish  church,  and  was 
therefore  a  suitable  agent  to  confirm  the  reception  of  the 
Gentiles,  where  Paul,  e.  g.,  would  have  had  no  influence. 


64 

Cornelius  was  a  representative  of  the  heathen  world.  He 
was  a  Roman  soldier,  an  instrument  of  Roman  powder, 
represented  by  the- fourth  beast  in  the  vision  of  Daniel. 
He  was  one  of  that  nation  which  took  away  the  theocrat- 
ic power  of  the  Jews — a  typical  Roman.  Besides,  he  was 
a  representative  of  the  heathen  in  a  moral  sense.  He 
was  dissatisfied  with  heathen  reliijion,  sympathized  with 
the  Jews,  was  charitable  and  God-fearing.  Some  main- 
tain that  he  was  a  proselyte  of  the  gate.  But  the  dis- 
tinction between  a  proselyte  of  tlie  gate  and  a  prosel^'te 
of  righteousness  was  not  till  after  the  Jews  came  under 
the  power  of  the  Romans.  So  that  if  Cornelius  was  not 
a  proselyte  of  righteousness,  a  proselyted  Jew,  he  was  a 
heathen  in  the  Jews'  eyes.  The  Italian  band,  of  which 
he  was  a  member,  constituted  the  body-guard  of  the 
governor.  It  was  a  cohort,  which  was  the  tenth  part  of 
a  legion,  A  cohort  consisted  of  three  maniples,  and  each 
maniple  of  two  centuries,  which  originally  were  made  by 
a  hundred  men,  but  later  by  a  number  between  60  and 
100,  and  were  under  command  of  a  centurion. 

Rcvelaiinn  was  by  visions.  Cornelius  was  prepared  by 
prayer.  Peter's  hunger  prepared  him  for  the  nature  of 
his  vision.  The  double  vision  has  analogy  in  the  gos- 
pels of  Mt.  and  Luke  in  revelation  of  the  name  of  Jesus 
to  Joseph  and  Mary.  Cornelius'  vision,  occurred  at  3 
P.  M,  Peter's  came  at  noon  the  next  day.  A  sheet  was 
let  down  from  heaven  containing  all  manner  of  clean  and 
unclean  animals,  i.  e.,  specimens.  Otliei-s  say  it  contain- 
ed four-footed  animals  of  all  sorts  or  very  many  kinds, 
and  others  say  it  contained  all  kinds  of  four-footed  beasts, 
as  well  as  reptiles  and  birds. 

"Slay  and  eat"  is  variously  explained.  Dr.  Alexan- 
der says  the  usual  doco  is  here  used  in  its  sense  of  slaying 
for  sacrifice.  Dr.  Lange  thinks  otherwise.  It  seems 
to  refer,  not  merely  to  the  satisfaction  of  his  appe- 
tite, but  to  those  ceremonial  restrictions  under  which  the 
law  of  Moses  placed  the  Jews,  both  in  their  worship  and 
the  daily  use  of  necessary  food.  Peter  was  to  make  his 
selection  from  among  those  animals,  either  for  food  or 
for  sacrifice,  without  distinction  as  to  clean  or  unclean. 
Vision  was  repeated  twice.     Some  think  the  beasts  de- 


65 

sceiiditig  from  heaven  are  symbolical  of  the  fact  that  the 
Gentilea  were  the  offspring  of  God.  Others  think  tlie 
vision  was  intended  to  repeal  all  ceremonial  laws.  The 
common  view  is  best,  that  the  ceremonial  law  with  regard 
to  food  is  taken  as  representative  of  al!  ceremonial  require- 
ments. See  the  teachings  of  Christ  concerning  food.  If 
men  were  separated  by  the  food  they  ate,  when  tliese 
requirements  were  abolished,  men  could  come  into  social 
intercourse.  These  distinctions  of  clean  and  unclean 
food  were  of  greatest  moment  to  the  Jews.  As  Peter 
pondered,  the  men  from  Cornelius  asked  for  him.  It 
was  shown  to  him  l)y  the  Spirit  that  the  three  men  sought 
for  h\\n,  10:19.  The  Spirit  made  the  application  of  his 
vision  to  him.  lie  did  not  go  on  his  own  authority. 
The  time  at  which  his  vision  occurred  left  time  for  the 
journey  of  the  men  from  Csesarea  to  Joppa,  a  distance  of 
35  miles. 

Discourse  of  Peti^ir,  34-43,  is  similar  to  that  at  Pen- 
tecost, though  the  latter  is  fuller  of  doctrine.  It  there- 
fore shows  an  advance  in  Peter's  views.  It  was  the  first 
discourse  delivered  to  a  Gentile  congregation.  His  hear- 
ers were  Cornelius,  his  household  and  his  near  tViends. 
The  advance  in  Peter's  views  appears  (1)  In  his  know- 
ing now,  what  he  did  not  know  before,  and  his  confession 
that  his  mind  was  ciianged.  (2)  Enlarged  doctrinal  views 
in  connection  with  truth  already  revealed.  He  preached 
before,  salvation  by  faith  and  grace — but  here,  he  shows 
it  to  be  a  personal  matter.  God  looks  at  the  heart.  He 
sketches  the  work  of  Christ  as  the  basis  of  universal 
acceptance.  He  mentions  Christ's  proplietic  work  towards 
the  Jews,  He  refers  to  His  priestly  work  in  His  atoning 
death  and  to  His  kingly  office  in  the  exaltation  succeed- 
ing the  resurrection.  He  is  Lord  of  all.  By  Him  God 
is  to  judge  world.  The  condition  of  salvation  is  shown 
to  be  faitii  ;  its  api)lication  is  confessed  to  be  universal. 
(10:  43)  And  all  this  (he  says)  was  foretold  by  the 
prophets.  Holy  Ghost  fell  on  all.  This  direct  divine 
interposition  is  a  climax  of  the  narrative.  Demonstra- 
tion of  the  Holy  Ghost's  presence  is  in  tlie  gift  of  tongues. 
This  represents  the  union  of  the  divided  human  family. 
Jew^s  and  Gentiles  have  the  same  Savior,  hence  this  has 
been  well  called  the"  Gentile  Pentecost." 


66 

(3.)  Effect  Produced  on  the  Jews.  Ch.  XI. :  1-18. 
The  Jewisli  Cliristians  who  were  brethren  were  taken  an 
witnesses.  The  matter  of  evidence  was  not  left  to  Peter 
alone.  (10:  23-11:12.)  Peter  was  taken  to  task  by 
"  them  of  the  circumcision,"  who  represented  the  party 
who  believed  in  the  necessity  of  this  rite.  All  in  Jerusa- 
lem were  circumcised.  Peter  said  God  had  sanctioned 
the  work,  showing  he  was  led  to  higher  doctrine  b}-  re- 
vealed instructions  which  were  given  to  him  personally. 
Advance  here  in  the  mind  of  the  church  as  well  as  in 
the  mind  of  the  Apostle.  Peter  now  recalls  the  truth 
before  taught  by  Christ.  The  promise  of  the  Spirit  (11: 
15,  16).  What  the  Apostles  see  now,  they  compare  with 
what  they  heard  before.  This  is  no  new  truth,  but 
development  of  tlie  old.  This  is  a,  fine  illustration  of 
the  advance  in  understanding  of  the  truth.  Effect  of 
Peter's  speech  is  stated.  There  was  great  joy  at  the 
reception  of  Christianity  by  the  Gentiles,  which  fact 
proves  the  humility  of  Christians  at  Jerusalem.  Such 
action  was  in  reality  a  substantial  sacrifice  on  their  part. 
It  is  objected  tliat  this  rejoicing  is  inconsistent  with  the 
subsequent  jealousy  of  tlie  Jews,  because  the  Gentiles 
were  received  witliout  circumcision. 

Ans.  :  Statement  is  general.  It  does  not  say,  all  re- 
joiced. Many  did  rejoice  at  the  admission  of  first  Gen- 
tile to  the  church.  So  clearly  sanctioned  by  God.  They 
did  not  foresee  its  practical  consequences,  and  the}'  after- 
wards changed  their  minds  when  tliey  saw  the  Gentiles 
outnumbering  them,  and  their  privileges  taken  away. 

Rationalistic  View.  Tiibingen  critics  say,  the  narra- 
tive is  at  variance  with  the  alleged  fact  that  the  Gentiles 
were  admitted  by  Paul.  The  doctrines  of  grace  are 
peculiar  to  Paul,  and  hence  Peter  did  not  arrive  at  the 
view  exhibited  here  by  a  process  independently  of  Paul. 
Hence  tliis  narrative  of  Luke  is  pronounced  a  myth,  or 
regarded,  with  Baur,  as  a  pious  fraud  designed  to  har- 
monize late  diflferences  between  Peter  and  Paul.  The 
nucleus  of  the  myth  is  Peter's  baptism  of  a  Roman 
proselyte — an  incident  wliich  attracted  great  attention. 
Argument:  1.  Peter's  position  is  indisputably  inconsist- 
ent with  Paul's  statement  regarding  him  in  Galatians  2: 


67 

12-14,  wlieii  the  former  is  re[)resente(]  as  fearing  to  do 
what  he  is  exhibited  in  Actts  as  sanctioning.  Ans. 
Objection  is  based  on  a  misinterpretation  of  the  passage 
in  (irahitians.  Then  Peter  is  confessedly  inconsistent 
with  himself,  not  with  doctrine  concerning  circumcision. 
Peter  exacted  more  than  lie  did  liimself.  He  acknowl- 
edged the  inconsistency  as  recorded  in  Galatians  by  his 
action  here  as  recorded  in  Acts.  Argument  2.  Peter's 
discourse  could  not  have  been  written  before  Paul's 
epistles  were  written.  Its  contents  are  Pauline.  Ans.: 
This  is  a  begging  of  the  question  and  is  not  true.  Be- 
sides, Pauline  characteristics  Jiot  yet  reached  ;  people 
have  not  cotne  to  see  the  conseciuences  of  the  admission 
and  of  the  discourse.  Arguments.  There  are  too  many 
visions.  Those  of  Peter  ai'e  imitation  of  Paul's,  whose 
position  it  was  attempted  to  vindicate.  This  could  be 
known  only  to  the  recipient.  Could  be  accounted  for  by 
high  state  of  emotion  brought  on  b}'  fasting.  Answer: 
Two  instances  so  remote  from  each  other  could  not  be 
explained  without  involving  the  supernatural.  The  two 
visions  authenticate  each  other  as  in  case  of  Paul  and 
Ananias.  This  vision  was  necessary  to  produce  a  cliange 
in  Peter,  as  is  evident  from  the  narrative  in  Galatians. 
Peter  could  not  co-operate  with  Paul  except  on  ground 
of  such  vision.  Renan  and  Tiibingen  scholars  admit  the 
facts — but  hold  they  were  perverted  by  the  writer  and 
transformed  for  basis  of  reconciliation. 

VI.  Antioch;  XI:19-30.  (43— 44  A.  D.)  Fourth 
radiation  from  Jerusalem.  Conversion  of  Gentiles  at 
Antioch  did  not  result  from  that  of  Cornelius,  because  it 
is  said  that  majority  of  those  who  went  from  Jerusalem 
to  Antioch  preached  to  Jews  only.  Besides,  if  conver- 
sion of  Gentiles  resulted  from  conversion  of  Cornelius, 
Peter  would  in  all  probability  have  remained  in  vicinity 
of  Caisarea,  where  one-half  of  population  was  pagan,  to 
prosecute  the  work.  Whereas,  after  his  brief  mission, 
confined  to  one  family,  he  goes  to  Jerusalem.  V.  19 
evidently  goes  back  to  death  of  Stephen.  If  so  we  have 
parallel  lines  of  preparation  in  the  church  and  in  the 
man.  Both  Paul  was  now  ready  for  his  work,  and  the 
whole  church   ready    to    accept  his  teaching.      Place — 


68 

Antioch,  which  was  most  suitable,  exquisitely  situated 
on  tlie  Orontes,  15  miles  from  the  coast;  the  capital  of 
Syria,  the  seat  of  the  procurator,  the  third  city  in  the 
empire  ;  with  a  population  of  half  a  million  ;  of  commer- 
cial importance;  wiiere  Greek  element  predominated  ; 
hio^hly  cultivated;  wealthy;  luxurious;  mythological. 
The  Gentile  mind  sought  after  solution  of  great  problems 
of  religion  in  the  speculations  of  ])hilosophy,  or  skepti- 
cism buried  them  out  of  sight  in  immorality.  It  is  impos- 
sible to  think  of  the  success  of  the  Gosjiei  in  the  world 
without  changing  its  center  from  Jerusalem,  which  pos- 
sessed neither  the  wealth  nor  the  energy  adapted  to 
spread  of  the  Gospel.  The  chuix-li  tlien  simply  awaited 
the  destruction  of  tlie  city.  This  apparentlj-  jeopardized 
the  unity  of  the  Christian  organization.  But  the  mother 
church  at  Jerusalem  exercised  her  relative  authoi-ity. 
Pains  are  taken  here  to  illustrate  the  introduction  of  the 
new  element.  Mother  cliurch  questions  Peter  concern- 
ing the  conversion  of  Cornelius,  and  sends  Barnabas  to 
Antioch.  Barnabas  sent.  The  question  here  raised,  why 
were  Apostles  not  sent,  as  Peter  and  John  to  Samaria,  and 
why  was  not  Barnabas  sent  by  the  Apostles.  Rationalists 
say  this  shows  the  prejudices  of  the  Apostles  against  the 
Gentiles.  They  would  not  recognize  them  as  a  new 
party  in  the  church,  nor  continue  the  movement.  Some 
say  that  this  proves  theEbionisni  of  the  Apostles.  True 
view  :  There  were  none  but  Hellenists  engaged  in 
preaching  to  the  Hellenists  at  Antioch.  Barnabas  was 
a  Hellenist  of  Cyprus,  eh.  4  :  36,  and  a  "  good  man,"  that 
is,  liberal,  large-hearted.  Baumgarten  :  It  shows  a  con- 
scious reserve  and  self-denial  on  the  part  of  the  Apostles. 
Some  say  that  the  Apostles  felt  that  their  own  activities 
must  be  directed  to  Jewish  church.  They  were  of 
opinion  that  Paul  was  sufficient  for  Gentile  work.  Some : 
The  Apostles  lacked  true  sympathy,  yet  we  see  the  plan 
of  Christ  to  separate  the  growth  of  the  church  from  their 
authority,  and  to  pass  over  the  work  among  the  Gentiles 
to  Paul. 

Dr.  Alexander:  "Paul  was  included  in  the  Apos- 
tolic commission  with  Barnabas,  who  was  authorized  by 
the  mother  church  to  associate  Paul  with  him  as  soon  as 


69 

he  found  that  the  fuovenieiit  at  Antiocli  was  ij^eiiuine," 
This  point  is  strengthened  by  the  onHtf)m  of  (Christ  send- 
\ug  the  Apostles  two  by  two.  The  sjreat  objection  to 
this  view  is  that  it  is  not  in  the  text.  This,  however,  may 
be  partly  met  by  believing  that  Paul  was  away  from 
Jerusalem  at  the  time  wlien  Barnabas  was  sent.  Why  was 
Barnabas  sent  by  church  and  not  by  Apostles,  Some  : 
The  message  from  Antioch  comes  to  the  churcli.  She 
com{)lies.  Some  :  What  was  done  by  the  church  in 
Jerusalem  was  done  by  the  Apostles.  Great  success 
attended  the  prcaciiing  of  Barnabas,  the  work  increased. 
[le  went  to  Tarsus  for  Saul.  They  both  worked  together 
for  a  whole  year  48,  44,  A,  D.  [Date  of  Herod's  death.] 
Nein  name  of  Christians  is  connected  with  the  new 
movement.  As  tlie  organization  was  called  a  cliurch  on 
day  of  l*entecost.  So  its  members  are  designated  Chris- 
tians witli  reference  to  missionary  woi'k.  Name  was 
evidently  not  given  by  themselves,  as  it  occurs  onlv  3 
times  in'K  T.  (Acts  11:  26;  26:  28;  1  Peter  4:  16,) 
and  in  those  passages  applied  from  without.  It  did  not 
come  from  tlie  Jews;  for  Christ  was  a  Messianic  title. 
They  would  have  likely  called  them  Jesuits.  It  seems  to 
have  been  given  and  chiefly  used  by  pagans.  Probably 
its  origin  is  Roman  (Olsiiausen.)  It  was  not  at  first  given 
in  a  good  sense  though  hardly  framed  out  of  contempt, 
Baumgarten,  DeWette.  Its  significance  in  marking 
a  new  era  is  great.  The  church  required  a  new 
name.  As  long  as  Christians  were  confined  to  Pales- 
tine, the  Gentiles  could  see  no  difterence  between  them 
and  Jews.  In  Antioch,  however,  the  people  were  hostile 
to  the-Jew8.  They  now  constituted  a  new  body  and  would 
refuse  to  lose  tlieir  identity  among  the  Jews.  The 
name  conveys  a  deeper  meaning.  Christ  announced  that 
His  church  should  receive  the  unction  of  the  Holy  Spirit. 
Christ=Messiah  =  Anointed.  Christians  anointed  by  the 
Spirit  in  union  with  Christ.  The  Jews  and  Gentiles 
were  fused  together.  Both  are  called  Christians.  In 
sight  of  the  world  they  are  one  body.  2nd  chapter  of 
Galatians  shows  that  the  two  parties  continued  there  in 
the  one  church. 


70 

Befijimiing  of  the  church  at  Antioch  is  marked  by  the 
same  graces  as  the  beginning  at  Jerusalem,  (community 
of  goods  at  Jerusalem  has  its  counterpart  in  collection 
made  at  Antioch  for  churches  in  Judea.  Here  is  the 
obligation  to  mother  church  exemplitied,  and  spiritual 
benetit  derived  by  the  Gentiles  acknowledged.  Like- 
wise is  the  calling  of  the  Gentiles  and  their  admission  to 
the  church  sanctioned  to  Peter  by  gift  of  tongues  as  at 
Pentecost.  The  charity  thus  manifested  and  thus  devel- 
oped preserved  unity  of  tlie  church  which  was  endan- 
gered just  now.  Paul  made  collections  for  this  end  in 
various  places,  to  mitigate  the  jealousy  between  Jew  and 
Gentile.  Calling  of  the  Gentiles  indicate  that  the  abro- 
gation of  the  old  system  was  at  hand.  Agabus  prophe- 
sied that  a  famine  was  approaching.  Now  the  famine 
was  predicted  by  Christ  to  be  a  precursor  of  the  destruc- 
tion of  Jerusalem.  After  which  event,  the  temple  being 
razed  to  tlie  ground,  the  Jewish  religion  was  virtually 
abolished.  The  church  at  Antioch  was  founded  in  view 
of  this  destruction. 

Offices  mentioned.  Prophet  and  elder.  Prophet  in  O. 
T.  was  inspired  teacher  who  gave  particular  attention  to 
prediction  of  future  events;  in  N.T.  this  element  is  sub- 
ordinate. The  case  of  Agabus  is  one  of  the  few  instan- 
ces of  prediction.  Elders  first  mentioned  v.  30.  This 
office  was  borrowed  from  tlie  synagogue,  after  tlie 
model  of  which,  and  not  after  'the  model  of  the 
temple  the  Christian  church  was  constituted  b}'  the 
Apostles.  Hence  the  eldership  is  not  mentioned  as 
new.  Difficulties :  1.  It  is  alleged  that  there  was  no 
such  unusual  dearth  during  the  reign  of  Claudius  Caesar 
(41-54)  who  succeeded  Caligula.  Ans  :  Four  local  fam- 
ines occurred  during  his  reign,  which  succeeded  one 
another  so  rapidly,  that  they  may  be  considered  as  con- 
stituting one  continuous,  progressive  famine.  A  famine 
visited  Judea  and  the  adjacent  countries  in  41  A.  D., 
(according  to  Lardner)  or  according  to  others  in  44, 
which  is  mentioned  by  Josephus  (Ant.  20:  2:  5)  as  the  cause 
of  many  deaths,  and  which  is  represented  bj'  Suetonius 
and  Tacitus  as  a  great  dearth  which  came  upon  the  whole 
empire  in  the  days  of  Claudius  Csesar.    This  gives  siguifi- 


71 

cance  to  the  aid  sent  from  Antioch.  It  was  directed  to 
Judea  alone.  At  this  time  the  dearth  in  Palestine  was 
specially  severe,  for  Izates,  king  of  Adiabene,  and  his 
mother  Helena,  a  Jewisli  proselyte  then  at  Jernsalem, 
im])()rted  food  from  Egypt  and  Cy[)rns,  to  be  distributed 
among  the  people.  Joseplins  (Ant.  20  :  2  :  5.)  2.  Some 
deny  that  the  church  at  Antioch  was  recognized  by  the 
church  in  Jerusalem,  claiming  that  Paul  and  Barnabas 
went  on  a  mission  independent  of  the  church,  and  not 
Hcnt  by  her.  We  never  rea<l  of  any  aid  being  sent  by 
the  Jews  to  the  C'liristians.  This  difficulty  is  raised  by 
rejection  of  the  narrative.  3.  The  origin  of  tlie  name  is 
an  anachronism.  Ft  is  iirst  found  in  Latin  authors  (Taci- 
tus and  Suetonius)  in  their  description  of  the  burning  of 
Rome  under  Nero.  4.  Paul's  visit  to  Jerusalem  is  denied 
becaused  it  is  passed  over  in  Galatians.  Ans.  :  Paul's 
object  in  Galatians  is  not  to  enumerate  all  liis  visits  to 
Jerusalem.  According  to  the  skeptical  method,  Chris- 
tianity is  divorced  from  the  movement  in  Jerusalem.  It 
is  under  the  direction  of  Paul,  and  opposed  to  Peter  and 
James  in  Jerusalem.  Some  :  Paul  was  appointed  to  go, 
but  did  not,  ou  account  of  some  unknown  cause.  Skeptics 
say,  if  this  was  not  Paul's  2nd  visit  tt)  Jerusalem,  it  never 
occurred,  but  why  iiot  the  tirst  ?  Luke  is  misled  in  the 
narration. 

VII.  Heiiodian  Persecution.  Ch.XIL  A.  D.  44.  This 
isatransition  chaptertotheministry  of  Paul.  Theadvance 
on  previous  persecution  consists  in  civil  power  taking  up 
the  sword  and  combining  with  Jewish  prejudices.  This 
fills  up  the  measure  of  Jewish  iniquity,  whicli  was  begun 
by  the  priests,  continued  by  the  people,  and  favored  by 
the  king.  The  jtersecution  is  directed  against  the  heads 
of  the  church.  The  narrative  is  appropriate  just  here, 
it  marks  the  close  of  the  preparatory  period.  Tlie  final 
rejection  of  the  Jews,  the  transfer  of  the  church  to  the 
Gentiles,  brought  about  by  this  persecution.  "  This  is 
the  final  act  of  Jewish  apostasy."  (Baumgarten.)  Peter, 
the  Apostle  of  the  Jews,  now  leaves  Jerusalem  judicially. 
(Cf.  Matt.  10:  23;  Acts  12:  17.)  The  mission  of  the 
Apostles  to  the  12  tribes  of  Israel  being  now  accom- 
plished, as  a  body  they  withdraw  also  from  Jerusalem, 


72 

and  go  to  Gentiles.  As  Peter's  departure  from  Jerusa- 
lem was  typical  of  the  rejection  of  the  Jews,  so  Herod's 
death  symbolized  the  judgment  on  the  Jews  and  the 
final  conquest  of  the  church  over  the  world.  Hence 
minuteness  of  detail  is  accounted  for.  Ilerod  was  the 
organ  of  the  people.  King  of  the  world,  as  opposed  to 
tlie  church.  Political  Chaiujes.  This  Herod  appears  only 
here  in  N.  T.  He  was  Agrippa  I.  son  of  Aristobulus 
and  Bernice,  nephew  of  Antipas,  favorite  of  Caligula  and 
Claudius.  Caligula  bestowed  upon  Herod  the  tetrar- 
chy  of  Philip.  (Batanea,  Trachonitis  and  Auranitis,) 
whicli  had  been  vacant  for  several  j-ears,  and  also  the 
tetrarchy  of  Lysanias  together  with  tlie  title  of  king,  ^37 
A.  D.)  which  liad  been  disused  since  the  days  of  his 
grandfather.  He  also  obtained  the  tetrarchy  of  Herod 
Antipas,  (Galilee  and  Perea)  whose  banishment  he  had 
procured.  In  41  Claudius  gave  him  Samaria  and  Judea. 
80  that,  like  Herod  the  Great,  he  ruled  over  all  Palestine. 
In  44  he  died,  king  of  the  united  kingdom.  Through  all 
these  intricate  changes,  Luke  carries  us  without  blun- 
ders. Herod,  unlike  the  rest  of  his  family,  was  amiable, 
and  a  favorite  at  Rome.  He  was  a  heathen,  but  became 
zealot  in  the  religion  of  the  Jews.  He  is  the  father  of 
Agrippa  II.  of  Acts.  His  daughters  were  Bernice  and 
Drusilla. 

The  cause  of  the  persecution  is  unknown.  Claudius 
and  Agrippa  were  favorites  of  the  Jews.  Priestly  arro- 
gance was  sustained,  and  Jewish  hate  against  the  church 
was  fostered.  James,  son  of  Zebedee,  Matt.  20  :  20,  was 
decapitated.  This  was  the  first  and  onl}-  death  in  the 
Apostolic  band  recorded.  One  request  of  his  mother  was 
fulfilled,  Matt.  20:  21.  His  brother  John  survived  all 
the  Apostles.  It  is  remarkable  that  only  the  death  of 
such  a  man  is  recorded,  and  so  briefly.  Ans  :  1.  It  is 
the  design  of  Providence  to  present  church  in  a  spiritual 
aspect,  putting  men  and  organization  into  the  back- 
ground. 2.  The  plan  of  the  book  is  to  sketch  the  growth 
of  Christianity  among  the  Gentiles,  as  contrasted  with 
personal  history.  What  Jantes  did  we  do  not  know. 
Peter  was  arrested  and  kept  in  prison  till  end  of  the 
trial.     People  were  praying  at  the  house  of  Mary  at  the 


73 

time  of  his  release.  Notwitlistandins:  their  prayers,  they 
coiikl  hardly  helieve  the  answer  when  it  came.  The 
delivei-ance  of  Peter  is  Ity  some  reofarded  as  mytliical, 
while  others  attrihiite  the  appearance  of  the  ans^el  to 
his  excited  imagination.  Peter  tlien  left  the  work  in 
the  hands  of"  James  and  the  hrethren,"  and  went  away 
to  some  other  place,  and  where  he  went  is  uncertain. 
Some,  as  Meyer,  say  to  a  hidinij  place  in  the  city.  Some, 
toCaesarea;  and  some  to  Antioch.  from  Gal,  2:11.  Rom- 
ish traditions  makes  him  }ro  to  Jiome  and  there  estab- 
lisli  the  papal  see.  Some  rcijard  Peter's  departure  as  a 
final  act  and  judgment.  "  All  the  Apostles  as  a  band  of 
woi'kers  left  Jerusaleni  at  this  juncture  forever."  (Baum- 
garten.)  This  involves  the  necessity  of  considering  James, 
of  17  V.  not  an  Apostle,  but  the  brother  of  our  Lord, 
Galatians  1:  19.  But  the  Apostles,  including  i*aul,  were 
present  at  the  Council  in  Jerusalem.  Still  Jerusalem 
retains  her  position  as  the  mother  Church.  V.  20.  Herod 
was  disjjleased  with  them  of  Tyre  andSidon.  The  rea- 
son is  unknown.  Their  commercial  relations  made  thene 
foreigners  glad  to  sue  for  peace — as  their  country  was 
nourished  hy  the  king'scountry.  They  sent  an  embassy, 
"  and  having  made  Blastus,  the  king's  chamberlain,  their 
friend,  desired  peace."  1'here  is  a  difierence  between 
Luke  and  Jose[)hus  (Ant  xrx.  :  8,  2)  in  the  account  of 
death  of  Ilerod.  The  latter  (1)  tells  of  no  embassy  and 
no  oration  ;  and  but  (2)  of  the  ap[>earance  of  the  owl  of 
ill-omen  ;  (3)  and  mentions  only  violent  abdominal  pains. 
I^uke  :  "  he  was  eaten  of  worms."  These  accounts  agree 
in  important  features  and  are  complementary.  The  death 
of  Herod  was  the  knell  of  Jewish  independence.  Relig- 
ious  oversight  was  then  esiablished  by  the  Romans. 
Although  this  oversight  was  committed,  for  a  time,  to 
Herod  of  Chalcis,  and  to  Agrippa  H.,  before  whom  Paul 
was  tried.  The  death  of  Herou  is  set  in  contrast  with 
the  persecution  of  the  brethren  and  the  death  of  James. 
In  s[iite  of  all,  the  word  of  the  Lord  grew  and  multi[»lied. 
This  is  the  key-note  to  the  book  of  Acts.  Luke  now 
resumes  the  history  of  the  church,  with  which  the  events 
recorded  in  vs.  19-23,  were  only  indirectly  connected. 


74 

PART    II.     PAUL    AND   THE   CHURCH  AMONG 
THE    GENTILES.      CHS.  XIII— XXVIII. 

Period  I.     Paul's   First   Missionary   Journly.     Chs. 
13,  14.     A.  D.  44—50. 

I.  Apostles  chosen  for  the  work.  Ch.  XIII. :  1-3. 
Paul  retmiis  to  Aiitioch  with  Biiniabas  and  Mark.  Nar- 
rative now  turns  from  Peter  to  Paul,  and  from  Jerusalem 
to  Antioch.  Tliose  holding  documentary  hypothesis 
consider  chs.  13  and  14,  to  be  incorporated  into  the  nar- 
rative of  Luke.  There  are  points  of  analogy  between 
the  beginning  of  cliurch  in  Jerusalem  and  at  Antioch; 
(1)  great  development  of  charity  and  Christian  love  in  An- 
tioch flowing  in  two  directions — more  catholic  and  with 
wider  range.  Relief  sent  to  the  church — missionaries 
^o  tlie  Ijeathen  world.  (2)  Manifestation  of  the  Spirit  by 
extraordinary  gifts.  In  Antioch  there  were  prophets 
and  teachers.  Holy  Ghost  remained  in  the  church. 
"  The  Holy  Ghost  said,  sei»arate  me  Barnabas  and  Saul." 
Points  of  contrast.  Development  of  Christianity  in  Jeru- 
salem more  sudden  and  miraculous  than  at  Antioch, 
wliere  it  is  gradual  and  practical.  Predominance  of 
miracles  in  early  pei-iod,say  some.  Analogous  with  same 
phenomena  at  birth  of  Christ.  Contrast  explained  by  the 
following  considerations:  In  Jerusalem  the  church  was 
founded  by  immediate  interposition  of  God  Himself.  In 
Antioch  the  church  was  founded  by  an  extension  of  the 
church  in  Jerusalem.  Jerusalem  experienced  a  Pente- 
costal outpouring.  In  Antioch  there  was  the  preaching 
of  converts.  In  Jerusalem  the  Apostles  take  the  lead. 
In  Antioch  Paul  does  not  assume  tlie  same  absolute  con- 
trol. The  church  at  Antioch  acts,  though  Paul  was  jires- 
jent.  In  realit\',  the  church  and  her  ministry  are  com- 
bined. By  laying  on  of  hands  on  Paul  and  Barnabas; 
the  church  recognizes  their  call  to  a  specific  work.  It 
is  not  an  act  calling  them  to  a  higher  office — but  an  act 
of  separation.  Lechler:  "Paul  here  for  first  time  assumes 
his  Apost(dic  office,  on  recognition  of  the  church."  This 
is  untenable,  for  he  had  been  already  preaching  six  years 
as  missionary  of  the  church,  and  had  exercised  Apostolic 


75 

authority.  But  now  he  comes  to  a  new  stasre  of  his  work. 
Here  we  see  the  Imnian  and  the  divine  as^encies  proui- 
inent.  The  Holy  Ghost  called  them  to  the  work — the 
church  acknowledujes  the  divine  command.  The  names 
oftlie  ministers  are  Hellenistic,  except  Manaen,  (a  He- 
brew name),  who  was  foster-brother  of  Herod  Antipas. 
Paul  is  mentioned  last.  The  expense  of  tlie  mission  was 
probably  assumed  by  the  church,  for  when  Paul  returns 
he  goes  to  the  church  to  give  an  account.  Such  was  the 
first  formal  foundation  of  missions,  hitherto  the  gospel 
had  been  preached  hy  individuals. 

n.   The  Journey.     XHI  :  4— XIV  :  28. 

(1)  Paul  IN  Cyprus.  XTH:  4-12.  Paul  went  by  Seleu- 
cia  to  Cyprus,  whose  ]")eople  liad  been  among  the  first  to 
preach  the  Gospel  to  Antiochians.  Reasons  for  going  to 
Cyi»rus  are  :  1.  It  was  near  and  populous.  2.  It  was  the 
birth-place  of  Barnabas.  3.  The  truth  when  brought  by 
Bariiabas  and  kinsman  Mark,  would  attract  attention  of 
their  friends.  4.  Some  of  the  Cypriotes  were  already 
Christians  and  preachers  of  the  Word.  Cyprus  lay  west- 
ward. PauTs  journey  and  work  always  lay  westward. 
Renan  says, '•  the  direction  of  his  journey  was  ever 
controlled  by  the  Roman  Empire  and  Mediterranean 
Sea."  The  Gospel  was  to  go  from  Jerusalem  to  Rome, 
and  the  great  sea  facilitated  communication.  After  land- 
ing at  Salamis,  Paul  and  Barnabas  preached  in  the  syna- 
gogue, and  were  aided  by  John  Mark,  who  was  a  Jeru- 
salem Jew,  and  wlio  took  part  in  the  Jf^wish  work.  Paul 
preached  to  the  Jews  at  first  in  Salamis,  and  elsewhere  in 
every  availahle  synagogue.  It  is  objected,  1.  that  this 
action  of  Paul  is  inconsistent.  If  he  preached  to  the 
Jews  first,  there  was  nothing  new  in  the  Antioch  move- 
ment, as  that  had  always  been  customar3\  (Baur.) 
This,  saj'  the  Rationalists,  was  introduced  for  irenic  pur- 
poses, to  reconcile  the  practice  of  Peter  with  that  of  Paul. 
Ans. :  The  objection  is  absurd.  Because  in  Salamis 
they  preached  to  the  Jews  first  is  no  proof  that  Paul's, 
intention  was  not  to  preach  to  the  Gentiles.  2.  It  is  ob- 
jected again  that  this  course  is  contradictory  to  Paul's 
own   doctrine  in   Romans  and  Galatians  regarding  the 


76 

rejection  of  the  Jews.  Ans. :  1.  Prophets,  Apostles 
and  Christ  liimself  taiijylit  that  rejection  of  the  Jews 
was  the  consequence  of  their  own  sins.  Jew  must 
yet  be  first.  li ejection  of  tlie  Gospel  at  Jerusalem 
was  not  merely  representative.  It  is  a  local,  per- 
sonal, individual  matter.  The  Gospel  offered  to  the 
Jews  everywhere,  and  rejected  everywhere.  2.  Rejec- 
tion of  the  Jews  was  not  to  he  lir.al  ;  the  offer  of  Christ 
must  he  continued  even  until  now.  The  Gospel  is  for 
individuals,  as  well  as  nationi.  3.  The  objection  pro- 
ceeds on  a  false  idea  that  Paul  should  go  to  the  Gentiles 
alone.  His  Gospel  was  for  all  who  would  accej)t  it.  4. 
Objection  is  contrary  to  Komans  1  :  16.  This  course 
manifests  earnest  desire  for  the  salvation  of  Jews  (Horn. 
11  :  14.)  5.  Practical  reason.  This  was  best  mode  of 
teacliing  the  people.  Those  in  the  Jewisli  synagogues 
would  understand  him,  ai.d  through  them  an  introtbic- 
tion  to  heathen  society  would  be  gained.  Paul  went 
westward  to  Paphos,  capital  of  Cyprus,  where  lived  the 
ruler, Sergius  Paulus,his  first  lieatlien  convert,  and  wliere 
Elymas,  the  sorcerer,  was  struck  blind.  Acts  13:  6-12. 
Notice  here  the  accuracy  of  Luke  :  It  was  long  thought 
be  was  mistaken  in  calling  the  governor  Sergius  Paulus, 
avdv-oxo^.  Augustus  divided  tlie  prt)vinces  of  the  Iion)an 
emjtire  into  prormo'cB  senatorice,  and  p^'ovincice  impera- 
tori(E  vel  Ccesari,  tlie  former  being  left  under  the  nomi- 
nal care  of  the  senate,  tiie  latter  under  the  direct  control 
of  the  emperor.  To  the  former,  the  senate  sent  (»fficers  for 
one  year,  called  di'd'jzaTOi,  or  proconsids.  Those  sent  to 
command  in  the  latter  were  called  proprietors.  Now 
Cyjjrus  wasan  im])erial  province,  reserved  by  Augustusfor 
himself,  and  of  course  as  such  would  be  governed  by  pro- 
prretors,  such  as  Pilate,  Festus,  Felix,  and  not  by  pro- 
consuls or  duO'jTzaToc.  But  sliortly  befoie  this  time,  as  is 
expressly  stated  by  Strabo,  Dion  Cassius,  Cyprus  was  re- 
stored to  the  senate,  and  hence  was  governed  now  by  a 
proconsul  or  duduTzato:;.  In  confirmaiion  of  the  minute 
accuracy  of  Luke,  coins  of  Proclus,  his  successor,  have 
been  found  in  this  I'lace  stamped  with  the  Latin  (procon- 
sul) and  with  tlie  Greek  {di^du-azoz)  name.  The  miracle 
of  blindness  is  rejected  by  the  skeptics,  who  allege  that 


77 

it  was  borrowed  from  Paul's  own  experience,  and  that 
the  anah>gy  between  Paul  and  Elynias,  and  Peter  and 
Simon  Maijns,  betrays  artifice  and  ai)ologetic  desitrii. 
Ans. :  Anahigy  exists,  because  tlie  work  was  the  same, 
and  maijicians  were  numerous.  Paul  assumes  a  new  atti- 
tude now  in  the  missionary  work  in  relation  to  Barna- 
bas and  the  other  Apostolic  workers.  Hitherto  he  lias 
been  subordinate.  He  was  mentioned  last  anionf^  the 
prophets  and  teachers  of  Antioch.  He  lias  risen  to 
prominence  by  successive  Pte])S,  This  prominence  is 
recognized  by  the  facts  of  his  life,  by  change  of  name, 
and  order  in  which  it  is  mentioned.  It  is  now  "  Paul 
and  Barnabas,"  except  in  Acts  15  :  25,  where  the  old 
order  is  used,  a?  being  familiar  to  the  j)eoj)le.  A  notable 
miracle  marks  the  outset  of  his  leadership,  and  this  im- 
portant conversion  manifests  the  presence  of  the  Spirit. 
Whether  the  name  Paul  is  now  assumed  on  account  of 
his  Roman  citizenship  or  whether  in  honor  of  the  procon- 
sul, it  makes  a  new  era  in  his  life.  It  makes  the  turn- 
ing-point between  Saul's  activity  among  his  own  country- 
men, and  Paul's  new  labors  among  tlie  Jews.  There  was 
doubtless  a  corresponding  subjective  change  at  this  time. 
lie  was  filled  with  the  Holy  Ghost. 

(2)  Paul  in  Asia  M'inor.  XIII:  13— XIV  :  26. 
Leaving  Cyprus,  they  cross  to  Pamphylia  and  Pisidia, 
points  next  west  to  Cilicia,  wh.ere  they  had  been  before. 
Paul's  oliject  is  to  establish  a  continuous  line  of  churches 
as  centers  of  Christian  influence,  westward  over  all  Asia 
Minor,  before  he  goes  to  Eurojje.  Church  commenced 
in  Jerusalem,  and  extended  to  Rome  and  Spain.  This 
general  plan  shows  itself  more  clearly  in  second  journey. 
Mark  left  them  at  Perga.  An  act  strongly  disapjtroved 
of  by  Paul  (15:  38),  as  shown  by  his  refusal  to  associate 
with  him  on  next  journey,  thouffh  a  full  reconciliation 
took  ]>lace  between  them  alterwards,  cf.  Col.  4  :  10,  11 
and  2  Tim.  4:  11.  Reasons  for  Mark's  course:  1.  He 
was  a  near  relative  of  Barnabas,  (a  sister's  son),  and  was 
jealous  of  the  change  in  relative  position  of  Patd  and 
Barnabas.  2,  Was  a  Jerusalem  Jew,  and  not  ready  for 
such  success  among  the  heathen.  (More  probable).  He 
agreed  with  the  principle,  but  was  alarmed  at  the  results. 


78 

3.  Mark  was  tired  of  his  work,  and  shrank  from  the 
dancrers  and  fatisjues  tliat  lay  before  him. 
.  Paul  at  Antigcii  in  Pisidia.  XIII:  13-52.  The 
best  account  of  their  labor  in  Asia  Minor,  is  that  of  the 
work  at  Antioch  of  Pisidia,  wliere  was  founded  the  first 
church  in  a  heathen  city.  Antioch  was  a  Roman  colony 
so  similar  in  customs  and  style  to  the  motlicr  cit}^  that 
Augustus  called  it  "Little  Rome."  Of  commercial  im- 
portance, and  though  composed  principally  of  Greeks,  it 
had  a  synagogue  of  Jews,  which  Paul  entered,  and  where 
he  was  invited  to  speak.  The  whole  region  round  was 
priest-ridden,  especially  Phrygja.  (Date — about  14  years 
after  Pentecost.)  First  Sermon  of  Paid  shows  develop- 
ment of  doctrine.  It  should  be  studied  in  connection 
with  discourse  of  Peter,  cii.  2  ;  with  that  of  Stephen, 
ch.  7  ;  and  with  Epistles  of  Paul.  (17-22.)  He  runs 
over  the  history  of  Israel  to  connect  the  offer  of  Christ 
with  O.  T.,  and  to  refer  every  change  to  tlie  immediate 
agency  of  God.  Sovereignty  of  God  is  the  thread  run- 
ning through  the  whole  sermon.  God  chose  them. 
Some  say  this  is  the  first  clear  enunciation  of  the  doctrine 
of  free  gi'ace  and  divine  sovereignty.  (23-25.)  He 
passes  along  the  line  of  judges  and  of  kings  till  he  comes 
to  David.  He  naturally  speaks  of  "  David's  son,"  v.  23. 
He  shows  that  Jesus  fulfilled  the  prophecies  and  types 
centering  in  David.  (24,  25.)  Gives  history  of  John 
the  Baptist.  (26-29.)  He  was  rejected  at  Jerusalem.  He 
is  now  offered  to  you  in  Antioch.  This  is  a  striking  point 
in  the  discourse.  They  would  naturally  say  :  If  Christ 
has  been  rejected  by  the  heads  of  our  church  at  Jerusa- 
lem, is  it  safe  for  us  to  accejjt  Him,  a  man  humbly  born 
and  ignominiously  put  to  death  ?"  Hence  Paul  proceeds 
to  the  resurrection,  to  overcome  the  unfavorable  effect 
produced  by  considering  his  birth  and  death.  (30-37.) 
(a)  Paul  was  himself  a  witness  of  the  resurrection,  (b) 
He  appeals  to  prophecy  to  confirm  what  he  says.  (Ps. 
2;  Ps.  16).  Which  is  same  argument  as  Peter  used. 
(vs.  38-41.)  Remission  of  sin  and  justification  by  faith 
alone.  Law  could  not  justify.  Pauline  doctrine  doc- 
trine not  set  forth  by  Peter.  He  closes  discoui'se  with  a 
warning  to  avoid  judgment.     Tubingen   scholars   reject 


79 

this  discourse  as  miPanline,  Peter  in  bis  sertuon  is  made 
to  talk  like  a  Pauline  Christian  ;  so  Paul  is  here  made  to 
speak  ill  a  Jewish  C'hristian  tone.  lie  does  not  begin 
his  discourse,  which  evinces  an  entire  lack  of  Paul's  man- 
ner, as  one  would  suspect  the  author  of  epistle  to 
Romans  would.  The  discourse  is  a  mere  echo  of  thuse 
of  Peter  and  Stephen.  The  latter's  speech  gives  the  his- 
torical part,  tiie  former's  supplies  the  resurrection, 
rather  than  the  death  of  Christ  (which  is  Paul's  favorite,) 
to  urge  an  aijceptance  of  the  (i()s])el.  The  terms  inti'o- 
duced  at  the  close  are  from  Paul,  "justification  by  faith,'" 
and  are  used  to  conceal  the  object  of  the  writer.  It  was 
necessary  to  do  so,  to  gi\e  Pauline  tone  to  the  discourse. 
Ans.  1.  In  Stephen's  and  Paul's  discourses,  references 
to  Old  Testament  were  necessary.  Both  end  with  David. 
Doubtless  Stejthen's  address  did  affect  Paul,  (7-58.)  They 
are  not  the  same.  Their  distinct  characteristics  justify 
the  originality  of  each.  Paul  makes  every  change  iii 
history  due  to  God;  Stephen  does  not.  It  is  thought 
that  Stei)hen  rejtresents  every  change  as  punitive.  (7:  43) 
Paul's  address  is  to  conciliate.  (13-38.).  2.  Difference  be- 
tween Peter  and  Paul  apj»ears  in  allusion  to  John  13a]:)tist. 
Peter  omits  it  at  Pentecost;  mentions  it  at  conversion  of 
Cornelius,  wlien  he  merely  uses  it  as  a  date.  (10  :  37.) 
Paul  uses  it  for  doctrinal  purposes,  to  prove  the  sin  of 
tliose  addressed,  the  necessity  of  repentance,  and  as  a 
testimony  to  Jesus  Christ.  The  prominence  given  to 
the  resurrection  is  the  main  argument  for  Petrine  char- 
acter of  this  discourse.  Paul  uniformly  presents  the 
death  of  Christ  as  ground  of  atonement.  Peter  adduces 
the  resurrection.  Olshausen  :  The  death  of  Christ 
was  reserved  at  first,  because  offensive  to  the  Jews.  The 
resurrection  was  v,  more  inviting  theme,  which  wa8 
exhil)ited  as  an  evidence  of  Christ's  glory.  Against 
tlie  charge  it  ma}'  be  urged,  1.  It  is  based  on  rejection  of 
Peter's  epistles,  which  are  confessedly  Pauline,  then  the 
death  of  Clirist  is  emphasized.  2.  This  objection  makes 
»io  allowance  for  circumstances.  Paul  here  speaks  to 
tliose  who  hear  him  for  tii-st  time,  hence  he  represents 
facts  best  calculated  to  accredit  Christ  as  Messiah.  (Peter 
did  the  same.)     In  his  epistles  the  truth  is  developed  and 


80 

83'steTnatized.  3.  His  death  is  referred  to  in  what  is  said 
of  the  persecution  (13:  28.)  4.  Allusion  to  justification 
by  faith  is  said  to  be  a  forijer}- from  the  ejustles  of  Paul. 
An  attempt  on  part  of  Luke  to  impart  a  PanHne  tone  to 
the  discourse,  (a)  Peter  had  preaclied  remission  of  sins. 
Paul  preaclies  justification  by  faith.  (b)  Refers  all 
change  to  God's  sovereignty,  (e)  lie  offers  Jesus  not  as 
Christ,  but  as  Savior  of  all  who  repent  and  bplieve.  (d) 
He  draws  a  contrast  between  justification  by  law  and 
justification  by  faith.  The  only  exception  is  "  every  one 
that  heUcreth."  5.  Peter  and  Paul  refer  to  same  pro- 
pliecies.  These  are  the  very  ones  wanted  in  both  cases. 
These  were  tlie  common  battleground  where  both  might 
enter.  Similarity  is  to  be  expected.  It  is  tlie  same  Gos- 
pel, and  tlie  same  period.  There  is  conspicuous  variety 
in  that.  "Let  the  discourse  be  compared  with  Peter'a 
sei-monsand  with  Paul's  ejjistles,  we  find  the  same  differ- 
ence as  circumstances  would  lead  us  to  expect."  (Alex- 
ander.) 

Tmdency  Theory  of  the  Tubingen  School.  Similarity  is 
the  principal  basis  of  this  theory.  Conscious  assimila- 
tion is  carried  out  in  details.  It  is  of  later  con^position. 
It  misrei)resents  the  history  of  tlie  church  so  as  to  accord 
with  the  growing  Union  of  the  church.  The  church  at 
first  was  Ebionite.  Early  church  in  Judea  never  held 
to  divinity  of  Chi'ist,  or  to  any  of  Paul's  distinctive  doc- 
trines. Hence  Paul  was  at  discord,  when  at  Jerusalem, 
with  the  Jews  and  the  early  church.  Now  the  Jewish 
restrictions  must  be  eliminated, — and  Luke  makes  the 
effort  to  rewrite  the  history  (in  Gospel  and  Acts)  to  rep- 
resent a  certain  idea  of  the  church.  The  history  was 
written  to  represent  a  certain  doctrine  or  tendency,  and 
assimilates  evidence.  Peter's  sujtprnatural  acts  are  ac- 
cording to  this  theory  untrue.  They  have  their  origin 
in  the  mythical  tendency  of  the  times  and  in  the  alleged 
necessity  of  connecting  the  early  history  of  the  church 
with  the  miraculous.  These  recorded  miracles  of  F'eter 
must  find  their  counterpart  in  the  life  of  Paul.  The 
grounds  for  belief  in  this  assimilation  which  skeptics 
allege  are  :  Peter  and  John  heal  man  born  lame.  So 
Paul  at  Lystra.     Peter  and  Simon   Magus  analogous  to 


81 

Paul  and  Elymas.  Shadow  of  Peter  had  its  counterpart 
in  brinjjing  handkerchief  to  Paul  at  Euhesus.  Peter 
raises  Tabitha ;  Paul  raises  Entychns.  Peter  was  wor- 
pliil»ed  by  Cornelius;  Paul  at  Lystra.  Peter  was  saved 
by  advice  of  Gamaliel.  Paul  by  the  outcries  between 
Pharisees  and  Sadducees.  The  gift  of  tongues  and  of 
the  Holy  Spirit  follows  the  blessing  of  both.  All  is  done 
skilfully.  The  artifice  is  in  the  representation,  and  not  in 
the  reading.  Sufferings  of  Paul  are  similar  to  those  of 
Peter  and  of  the  early  Christian  community.  Stephen 
was  stoned.  So  was  Paul.  Peter  and  Paul  both  impris- 
oned— both  miraculously  delivered — one  in  Jerusalem — 
the  other  in  Phiiipiii.  Hence  it  follows  :  1.  Account  of 
the  persecution  must  be  doubted.  2.  Persecutions  of  Paul 
must  have  been  ignored  by  Luke — they  are  never  alluded 
to  in  Acts.  Paul  complains  of  bodily  weakness  in  Acts, 
no  mention  of  it.  In  Acts  Paul  is  made  to  approach 
Jewish  modes  of  thought.  His  alignments  used  in  Acts 
distinct  from  those  used  in  epistles.  At  Athens  he 
preaches  monotheism.  Peter  is  Paulinized.  He  first 
brought  in  the  Gentiles.  The  journey  to  Arabia  is  left  out 
of  Acts,  so  that  Peter  may  bring  in  thefirst  Gentile.  Paul 
is  a  seer  of  visions.  Peter  must  have  visions  also.  Hence 
botli  hail  a  double  vision.  Paul's  controversies  with 
Jews  at  Home,  Corinth,  etc.,  are  omitted — as  is  the  con- 
flict with  Peter  recorded  in  Galatians.  Most  remarkable 
of  all,  Titus  is  not  mentioned  by  Luke.  Ans.  in  general: 
1.  Much  of  the  alleged  similarity  is  forced.  What  connec- 
tion is  there  between  the  stoning  of  Paul  and  the  stoning 
of  Stephen  ?  2.  Paul's  concession  to  Judaism  is  no  more 
than  natural,  considering  his  birth  and  earl}^  training. 
He  circumcised  Timothy,  (16  :  3.)  This  was  a  matter  of 
expediency.  A  heathen  minister  would  have  been  an 
offense  to  the  Jews.  Titus  was  not  circumcised,  because 
a  principle  was  involved.  3.  As  to  his  visits  to  Jerusa- 
lem, they  are  mentioned  in  the  most  casual  manner  in 
Acts.  One  visit  (18-22)  is  passed  over.  Controversies 
are  passed  over  :  (a)  This  is  not  in  accordance  with  the 
plan  of  the  book,  (b)  It  was  not  his  plan  to  mention 
the  collection  to  "  the  poor  saints  in  Jerusalem,"  Rom. 
15:  26;    1  Cor.  16:  1;   2  Cor.  9:  1;    Gal.  2:    10;   though 


82 

he  did  mention  the  one  in  Antioch  for  the  churches  in 
Judea.  4.  Similarity  of  the  speeches  due  to  Luke,  who 
freely  reported  tiiem.  We  have  not  the  ipsissima  verba. 
The  speeches  are  characteristic.  This  appears  further 
from  a  comparison  with  epistles  of  both  Apostles.  Doc- 
trine of  Justification  and  Atonement;  (Acts  10:  36  and 
Romans  1.)  There  are  miracles  of  Paul  in  the  epistles. 
Unity  of  the  doctrines,  similarity  of  circumstances, 
identity  of  office  and  work,  is  the  real  explanation.  The 
ditterences  are  as  many  and  as  great  as  the  resemblances, 
and  the  book  is  inartificial. 

Effect  of  the  work  at  Antioch.  Gentile  church  was 
founded.  The  whole  region  was  evangelized.  V.  42. 
Jews,  Synagogue,  Gentiles,  these  terms  are  interpolations 
ix  r^c  Gouayioyvj^  zcop  'loudacwu  is  found  only  in  G.,  which 
the  teztus receptus  follows.  Simple  auTwv  is  supported  by 
A.,  B.,  C.,  D.,  E.,  Vulgate,  Cod.  Sin.,  Text  of  Chrysos- 
tom,  Lachmann,  Tischcndorf,  Alford.  7V>.  iOy/^  is  found 
in  G.,  omitted  in  A.,  B.,  C.,  D.,  E.,  Cod.  Sin.  Autmu 
Tzapey.dXouv.  Expression  indefinite,  probably  has  for  its 
subject  the  mixed  congregations.  Then  we  read  i^couzcov 
auTcov.  "  Now  as  they  were  going  out  of  the  synagogue 
they  besouglit,"  i.  e.,  not  the  Gentiles,  whose  case  comes 
in  afterward,  but  the  mixed  congregation  of  Jews  and 
proselytes,  to  whom  the  discourse  had  been  addressed. 
IS'ext  Sabbath  the  whole  city  came  to  hear  them.  This 
shows  the  favorable  impression  made,  and  tliat  the  fields 
were  whitening  to  the  harvest.  The'  Jews  took  alarm, 
and  sought  to  excite  a  persecution:  but  as  Antioch  was 
a  Roman  colony  they  dared  not  openly  persecute,  hence 
they  resorted  to  intrigue.  There  were  in  the  city  women 
of  the  better  class,  more  devout  than  the  men,  proselytes 
to  Judaism.  Through  these,  Jews  influenced  the  chief 
men  and  instigated  persecution,  which  resulted  in  Paul's 
flight  to  Iconium. 

B.  Paul  AT  Iconium.  Ch.  XIV:  1-5.  Iconium  was  a 
populous  city,  45  miles  S.  E.  from  Pisidian  Antioch.  It 
largely  contributed  to  the  consolidation  of  the  Turkish 
empire.  It  was  the  capital  of  the  Seljukian  sultans. 
It  was  not  a  colony  now,  but  had  a  population  similar 
to  that  of  Antioch.     Same  results  followed,  the  city  was 


83 

divided.  Preachers  were  assaulted  and  fled  to  Derbe 
and  Lystra,  30  miles  soiitli  of  Iconiiini,  They  visited 
tlirouii^h  the  country  round  about.  Population  was 
ruder  and  less  Greek. 

C.  Paul  at  Lystra.  Cii.  XIV  :  6-21.  At  Lystra, 
Paul  heals  the  impotent  man.  Heathen  mythology  was 
still  exerting  its  influence.  The  legend  of  the  visit  of 
Jupiter  and  Mercurius  to  that  part  of  the  country  was 
current.  His  temple  stood  in  front  of  the  gates  of  the 
city.  The  people  sought  to  pay  divine  honors  to  Paul, 
wlio,  being  the  chief  speaker,  was  called  Mercurius, 
and  to  Barnabas,  who,  from  liis  commanding  mien 
(Chrysostom)  was  called  Jupiter.  The  forenamed  legend 
accounts  for  the  identification.  The  apparent  delay  on 
part  of  Paul  and  Barnabas  in  preventing  the  ottering  of  \ 
sacrifice  is  explained  from  the  following  facts.  The 
people  spoke  a  barbarous  dialect,  the  speech  of  Lycaonia. 
P.  and  B.  did  not  understand  it.  The  gift  of  tongues 
appears  not  to  have  been  bestowed  for  preaching  the 
Gospel.  Paul  spoke  in  Greek,  which  would  not  be  easily 
understood.  To  put  a  stop  to  the  ceremony,  they  rush 
in  among  the  people  and  "  rend  their  clothes."  Pei-se- 
cution  drove  them  out  of  Lystra,  Jews  come  from 
Antioch  and  Iconium  and  appeal  to  the  mob.  Paul  was 
stoned,  and  drawn  out  of  the  city  as  dead.  They  fly  to 
Derbe,  where  they  meet  with  success  and  where  the 
account  of  the  first  missionary  journev  ended. 

D.  The  Return.  Cii.  XIV:  21-26.  The  Apostles 
return  via  Lystra,  Iconium  and  Antioch,  confirming, 
exliorting  and  ordaining  elders. 

3.  Paul  again  with  the  Church  at  Antioch. 
After  each  journey,  Paul  returns  to  Antioch.  (1.)  He 
makes  Antioch  the  central  point  for  the  sake  of 
preserving  the  unity  of  the  church,  From  this  lie 
carries  forth  life  to  all  points  on  his  circuit.  (2.) 
He  returns  over  the  same  road,  that  beginnings  of 
work  might  be  consolidated.  (3.)  We  see  early  evi- 
dence of  organization.  "  They  ordained  elders  in  every 
church."  These  churches,  left  for  years  to  themselves, 
must  have  been  organized.  Important  questions  :  What 
were  the  elders?     What  is  the  meaning  of"  ordained?" 


84 

Was  "  ordination*'  an  Apostolic  act,  or  does  the  expres- 
sion include  the  church.  [These  questions  belong  to 
anotlier  chair  of  the  seminary,  and  cannot  be  discussed 
here.]  Ch.  16  shows  us  how  these  churches  grew  in 
Paul's  absence.  Timothy  was  now  living  in  Lystra  or 
Derbe.  He  was  a  convert,  well  reported  of  there.  On 
Paul's  next  visit  he  attached  himself  to  his  service.  (4.) 
Four  independent  churches  were  established  by  this  tour. 
Remarkable  readiness  to  receive  the  Gospel  is  shown. 
(5.)  The  Jews  of  tlie  dcaarcofid,  in  their  si;)irit  of  opposi- 
tion, manifested  tlie  same  disposition  as  those  in  Jerusa- 
lem. Paul  was  even  more  persecuted  in  remote  regions 
than  were  Peter  and  James  in  Jerusalem.  These  churches 
probably  did  not  belong  to  Galatia,  according  to  N.  T. 
usage. 

Period  II.  The  Council  of  Jerusalem.  Acts  XV  : 
1-35.  [Gal.  2:  1-11.]  This  event  marks  a  crisis  in 
Apostolic  history.  It  was  not  occasioned  by  a  few  bigots  : 
the  causes  are  to  be  found  in  the  historic  condition  of 
the  times.  The  transition  from  Ritunl  to  Gospel  was  not 
yetcomplete.  Thequesrion  is,  Shall  the  church  be  cum- 
bered with  O.  T.  forms?  It  is  a  question  between 
authority  and  Christian  liberty.  Ritual  had  power  of 
divine  sanction  as  w-ell  as  of  family  ties  and  national 
pride.  Its  previous  advant:ige  to  the  church  argued  its 
continued  preservation.  The  system  was  rooted  in  human 
nature,  as  history  shows,  e.  g.,  Sacramentarian  contro- 
versy. Success  of  church  was  at  stake.  If  circumcision 
was  imposed  on  all  converts,  Christianity  would  be 
limited,  or  else  a  schism  would  ensue.  Already  they  had 
two  kinds  of  religion,  and  two  centers  of  influence  estab- 
lished at  Jerusalem  and  Antioch.  There  was  imminent 
danger,  thei-efore,  that  Gentiles  would  revolt  from  Jeru- 
salem and  Jewish  churches  degenerate  to  sectarianism. 
Relation  of  Apostles  to  question.  Peter  and  Paul  had  acted 
as  though  all  could  become  Christians.  The  pouring  out 
of  the  Spirit  on  the  Gentiles  had  divinely  aiithorized  this 
position.  The  liberality  of  the  churches  in  Jerusalem  is 
evinced  in  their  rejoicing  at  the  work  of  Paul  and  Bar- 
nabas among  the  Gentiles.  Acts  15  :  3  ;  Gal.  1 :  21. 
But  at  Autioch  there  was  a  circumcision  party  opposed 


85 

to  Feter,  who,  even  after  tlio  haptism  of  Cornelius,  con- 
tinued to  preach  to  Jews  only.  These  were  strengthened 
by  emissaries  sent  from  Jerusalem,  who,  however,  were 
not  commissioned  by  the  Apostles  (15  :  5,)  but  repre- 
eented  a  discontented  minority.  Paul's  mission  to  Asia 
put  a  new  face  on  the  question.  The  Gentiles  were 
becoming'  moi-e  numerous  in  the  churches  tlian  the  Jews. 
The  church  at  Jerusalem  was  losing  prominence  and 
hopes  of  restoring  national  honor  were  einhmgered. 
Those  who  rejoiced  at  the  baptism  of  Cornelius  now  up- 
braid, and  the  Jewish  Christians  are  roused  to  concerted 
action  action. 

V.  2.  Excitement  ran  liigli.  There  is  no  evidence  that 
the  Pharisaic  sect  liad  much  success  at  Antioch.  The 
mode  "in  wliich  the  difficulty  is  met  :  The  Apostles  as  a 
body  miglit  have  bound  the  church  by  a  decree,  but  they 
recognize  tlie  enlightening  presence  of  tlie  Spirit  in  the 
church  ;  opinions  of  the  body  of  believers  must  not  be 
forced.  Intelligent  conviction  is  required.  A  council 
was  therefore  called  to  decide  the  matter.  This  council 
was  truly  a  representative  assembly,  (v,  12,  25,  26)  com- 
posed of  delegates  from  the  two  great  centers  Jerusalem 
and  Antioch,  and  other  neighboring  places,  and  repre- 
senting the  whole  membership,  Apostles,  elders  and 
brethren. 

Tlie  Judaizers  held  to  the  necessity  of  circumcision 
and  observance  of  the  law  of  Moses.  They  held  that 
salvation  is  secured  bj-  faith  in  Christ,  but  that  faith 
comes  oidy  through  circumcision,  (analogous  to  Ritua- 
lists of  the  present  day.)  Therefore  circumcision  repre- 
sented their  whole  sj'stem.  The  Apostles  were  all  on 
one  side.  According  to  Paul,  circumcision  is  a  matter  of 
choice.  Notice  here  the  connection  between  the  history 
and  the  doctrine  :  1.  Peter's  speech  is  the  most  advanced 
statement  of  the  doctrine  of  grace  yet  made.  He  had 
said  before  that  the  Gentiles  must  be  received  on  equal 
terms,  but  never  that  the  Jews  could  be  saved  without 
circumcision,  nor  that  the  law  was  a  burden.  He  con- 
trasts law  and  grace,  saying  that  they  as  well  as  Gentiles 
must  be  saved  by  grace  alone,  that  circumcision  was  of 
no  advantage  to  them.     This  Pauline   contrast   between 


86 

law  and  s^race  is  new  to  Peter.  His  work  hitherto  had 
been  to  secure  faith  in  the  Jews,  now  he  comes  to  adjudi- 
cate between  differences  in  doctrine.  2.  Connection  be- 
tween liistory  and  doctrine  is  further  sliown  by  the  fact 
that  altliough  Paul  and  Barnabas  do  not  ao-ree,  there  is  no 
argument  or  discussion  of  principles  in  the  council,  but 
simply  a  statement  of  the  case  by  Peter  showing  that  the 
facts  contain  the  doctrine.  James  then  shows  that  the 
doctrine  thus  attested  by  God  was  not  new,  but  that  it 
was  a  fulfillment  of  prophecy,  (Amos  9 :  11,12.)  And 
proposes  action  on  the  part  of  the  council.  A  decree  is 
then  formulated.  (Vs.  20,  29.)  With  reference  to  this 
decree  the  question  arises,  Why  should  fornication  be 
classed  in  the  same  category  with  things  of  no  moral 
character?  Two  views:  1.  Forced  interpretation  by 
those  who  reject  the  history.  They  say  that  James  means 
to  place  fornication  and  eating  meats  on  the  same  level; 
therefore  the  account  is  unhistorical.  But  true  interpre- 
tation is  his  motive  to  urge  the  Gentiles  to  restrict  their 
liberties  whether  as  to  things  moral  or  ritual.  These 
things  were  connected  with  idolatry,  and  therefore 
especially  hateful  to  the  Jews.  Fornication  was  very 
common  and  regarded  by  the  heathen  as  venial.  View 
of  Lipsius.  These  demands  are  the  same  as  those  made 
on  proselytes  of  tlie  gate.  The  basis  of  the  demand  is 
sanctit}-  of  blood,  Fornication  is  therefore  forbichlen  as 
a  defilement  of  blood.  Inference  :  This  would  admit 
uncircumcised  Gentile  converts  to  nothing  more  than 
they  had  always  enjoyed,  and  therefore  the  narrative  does 
not  teach  that  Jerusalem  Apostles  came  to  Paul's  views. 
Church  converts  were  only  admitted  to  privileges  of  Gen- 
tile converts.  The  reason  for  these  requirements  James 
gives  in  v.  21,  i.  e.,  either  law  is  kept  in  remembrance 
by  the  people,  and  therefore  the  Gentiles  would  abstain 
from  what  the  law  forbids,  or  the  verse  is  an  answer  to 
the  objection  that  admitting  the  Gentiles  is  a  dislionor 
to  Moses.  "But  no,"  says  James,  "for  Moses  is  read  in 
the  synagogues  every  Sabbath  day." 

2nd.  The  resolution  was  a  compromise.  All  agree 
in  the  principle  of  salvation  by  faith,  but  there  were  cer- 
tain things  to  be  voluntarily  conceded  on  both  sides.    Jews 


87 

were  to  retain  their  ceremonies,  and  Gentiles  to  i^ive  up 
wliat  was  offensive.  Paul  api)Iie(l  same  principle  in 
Corinth.  Concession  is  here  rnntual.  Thisi)rings  ahout 
union,  and  separates  Gentiles  from  heathen  friends,  and 
restricts  social  customs  tendins^  to  sin. 

Lipsius  :  Decree  impossible  because  contradicted  in 
Galatians.  If  circumcised  Christ  will  profit  nothing. 
Here  he  says  it  is  indifferent,  therefore  this  decree  is 
incorDorated  in  the  liistory  by  the  psendo-Luke.  Baur 
says  it  was  invented  for  conciliatory  purposes. 

But  this  explanation  is  inadequate.  Decree  does  not 
involve  Gentile  equality  as  being  the  design  of  book  of 
Acts.  Decree  was  only  enforced  in  the  Jewish  church. 
Resolutions  were  embodied  in  a  paper  addressed  to 
churches  in  Antioch,  Syria  and  Cilicia.  Churches 
founded  by  Paul  in  Asia  Minor  were  not  included,  being 
distant,  and  it  may  have  been  intended  only  for  Pales- 
tine, hence  Paul  does  not  mention  it  in  his  epistles. 
Some  date  it  subsequent  to  the  epistle  of  James.  Sup- 
posed to  be  drawn  up  by  him,  and  sent  by  Judas  and  Silas 
(Jerusalem  Apostles)  to  the  churches,  to  wliom  it  gave 
great  consolation.  The  rights  of  the  Gentiles  were  tiow 
ensured. 

Harmon)/  of  Acts  and  Galatians.  Gal.  II :  1-11. 
Paul's  own  account  of  his  visit  to  the  council  at  Jerusa- 
lem is  here  given  witli  additional  details.  Identity  with 
Acts  15  disputed.  Luke  records  five  visits  of  Paul  to 
Jerusalem  after  his  conversion.  (1st.)  From  Damascus, 
(Acts  9  :  26.)  (2nd.)  From  Antioch  before  missionary 
journey,  (11  :  30.)  (3rd.)  To  council  at  Jerusalem  after 
first  missionary  journey,  (15.)  (1th.)  From  Corinth  after 
second, (18:  21.)     (oth.)  Afterthe  third  journey,  (21 :   17.) 

The  first  is  not  the  same  as  the  Galatian  visit,  (Gal. 
2  :  1,)  because  it  is  mentioned  as  distinct.  Nor  is  it  the 
same  fifth,  because  Paul  was  imprisoned,  and  could  not 
return  to  Antiocli.  Leaving. out  these  two  visits,  three 
remain  to  be  accounted  for. 

2nd  visit.  Calvin  says  that  Galatian  visit  (2  :  1,)  is 
identified  with  that  from  Antioch  with  contributions. 
Also  argued  that  it  is  mentioned  2nd  in  Galatians  and  is 
here  2nd.     Baur  says  it  was  necessary  for  Paul  to  enume- 


88 

rate  all  his  visits  to  Jerusalem  in  his  epistle  to  Galatians. 
There  he  says  "  14  years  a^ter,"  lieiice  journey  in  Acta 
never  occurred.  Is  this  to  be  reckoned  from  conversion 
or  from  visit  in  context  ?  "  14  years  after,  I  went  to 
Jerusalem,"  if  reckoned  from  journe}'  in  context,  would 
be  30  A.  D.,  entirely  too  earl}'.  He  does  not  use  the 
word  osuTSfiou,  but  TtaAcu.  Wieseler  dates  from  Acts  18  : 
21,  A.  D.  54,  and  places  the  conversion  A.  D.  40.  He 
identities  the  Galatian  visit  witli  Acts  18  :  21.  But  Paul 
did  not  need  to  give  all  his  journeys.  lie  is  proving  hia 
Apostolic  authority,  not  giving  an  account  of  his  life. 
Visit  with  contributions  had  no  bearing  on  his  argument 
for  Apostolic  authority.  The  second  visit  mentioned  in 
Acts  is  therefore  not  the  sanie  as  second  in  Galatians. 
For  the  3rd  visit:  Majority  of  authorities  identity  this 
with  2nd  in  Galatians.  (1.)  It  suits  chronology  with  re- 
gard to  the  council.  (2.)  Barnabas  accompanied  Paul  to 
Jerusalem,  and  retnrned  to  Antioch  with  him,  (2  :  13.) 
But  afterwards  separated  from  him,  (Acts  15.)  It  is  not 
likely  the}'  came  together  again  to  go  to  Jernsalem.  (3.) 
Internal  evidence.  Both  accounts  agree  as  to  the  object 
of  the  visit.  In  Acts  he  comes  up  to  settle  the  relation 
of  tlie  Gentile  converts  to  the  church,  which  involved 
the  validity  of  Paul's  claim  to  Apostleship,  If  the  dis- 
pute is  settled  there.  Gentile  converts  are  recognized. 
Galatians  has  to  do  with  the  personal  qu(;sti(ui  of  his 
authority  as  the  Apostle  of  tlie  Gentiles.  Which  the 
Galatians  called  in  question.  (4)  Galatians  2  cannot  re- 
fer to  a  later  visit  than  Acts  15,  because  it  is  impossible 
that  Paul  should  have  omitted  that  visit  from  his  argu- 
ment in  Galatians.  For  4th  visit  :  Acts  18  :  21  :  Gal. 
2  :  1.  The  visit  in  Acts  18  :  21,  was  to  the  feast,  and  not 
from  Antioch,  but  from  Ephesus,  and  not  accompanied 
by  Barnabas,  but  by  Aquila  and  Priscilla.  Wieseler  con- 
cedes the  principle  in  dispute  in  saying  that  the  two 
passages  cannot  be  harmonized.  This  is  yielding  the 
most  important  point.  He  argues  from  the  differences 
and  tries  to  meet  the  skeptical  argument  by  denj'ing  the 
identity.  Baur's  use  of  the  passage. — He  says  that  the 
epistle  to  Galatians  affords  the  chief  proof  that  Peter  and 
primitive  Christianity  was  Ebionistic  and  hostile  to  Paul, 


89 

and  this  passasje  especially.  Argument.  (1.)  In  Acts 
15  Paul  and  Bartiabas  are  sent  to  Jerusalem  by  the 
church  ;  in  Gal.  2  the}' go  up  by  revelation.  The  account 
in  Acts  involves  recognition  of  Paul's  authority.  Paul 
and  Barnabas  are  commissioned  to  make  known  decree. 
It  is  claimed  that  the  object  is  to  show  that  Paul  is  de- 
pendent on  Peter.  According  to  Galatians  Paul  is  mis- 
chief-maker, disobedient  to  authority  he  had  already  re- 
cognized. But  there  is  no  contradiction.  Paul  might 
fear  to  subject  his  authority  to  question  without  revela- 
tion, lie  does  not  give  details  because  not  necessary. 
Account  in  Galatians  is  supi)lementary  to  Acts.  (2.)  The 
second  and  most  obvious  difference  is  that  Acts  15  describes 
a  public  and  formal  transaction,  and  makes  no  mention 
of  private  intercourse  with  the  Apostles.  Galatians 
insists  that  it  was  private  x«r'  idiav,  and  no  mention  is 
made  of  public  intercourse.  But  there  is  no  contradic- 
tion. We  are  not  to  take  xaf  iduiv  as  meaning  "  one  by 
one,"  "  separately,"  but  "  private  conference  between  me 
and  them."  This  does  not  exclude  public  intercourse. 
The  one  account  does  not  deny  what  is  in  the  other.  It 
is  Luke's  purpose  to  give  public  meeting  :  Paul's  private 
acts  are  not  in  his  plan.  But  Paul  must  state  his  per- 
sonal relations.  Objected :  Why  did  he  not  tell  the 
Galatians  of  the  decree  of  the  council  ?  (a)  His  argu- 
ment is  his  personal  treatinent;  more  to  this  point  how 
Peter  and  James  received  him.  (b)  History  of  the  coun- 
cil was  well  known  to  the  Galatians.  Ellicott,  Meyer 
and  Lightfoot  say  that  Galatians  refers  also  to  public 
transactions.  (2:  2.)  "Told  to  them,"  i.  e.,  Christians 
at  Jerusalem,  not  solely  to  the  Apostles  as  related  by 
Luke.  Objection.  He  had  met  Peter  and  James  before, 
but  there  was  something  new  to  demand  attention,  for  there 
were  large  accessions  to  the  church  from  the  Gentiles. 
Hence  reason  for  second  journey  to  Jerusalem.  (3.)  No 
mention  made  of  the  case  of  Titus  in  Acts,  but  in  Gal. 
2  :  3  it  is  said  that  Paul  took  him  with  him  as  a  type  of 
the  uncircumcised  Greek.  According  to  Galatians  Paul 
resists  circumcising,  but  afterwards,  Acts  16:  3,  he  cir- 
cumcises Timothy.  Objected  that  Acts  passes  over  in 
silence  the  case  of  Titus  because   there  was  a  quarrel, 


90 

and  so  there  is  nn  inconsistency.  Wieseler  solves  the 
difficulty  chronologically,  putting  case  of  Timothy  prior 
in  accordance  with  Acts  16  and  the  refusal  to  circum- 
cise Titus  later.  This  marks  a  higher  ground  reached  by 
the  Apostles.  Objected.  This  implies  a  change  of  princi- 
ple. But  true  explanation  is  that  the  question  of  circum- 
cision was  the  chief  one  of  the  time.  Titus  was  a  pure 
Greek,  while  Timothy  was  a  Jew  by  his  mother,  and 
therefore  his  circumcision  a  case  of  charity.  (4.)  Personal 
relations  between  Paul  and  tlie  other  Apostles  are  given 
differently  in  the  two  accounts.  In  Acts  very  friendly. 
Peter  uses  Pauline  terms,  but  in  Galatians  Paul  speaks 
of  them  slightingly  as  having  withstocKJ  him.  The  Jerusa- 
lem Apostles  are  identified  by  him  with  the  extreme  Juda- 
izers.  The  phrase  "seemeth  to  be  something"  is  a  false 
translation.  It  is  not  contemptuous.  The  Greek  means 
"  they  were  what  they  seemed;"  and  thus  emphasizes 
their  authority.  Even  these  had  given  their  assent  to 
Paul.  So  they  cannot  be  identified  with  his  opponents. 
(5.)  Peter  refused  to  eat  with  the  Gentiles  just  after  the 
council.  Some  say  that  this  is  incredible  ;  it  must  have 
beeu  before  the  council  and  not  after.  For  after  the 
council  had  given  its  decision  he  could  have  no  fear  of 
incurring  the  displeasure  of  James.  Wieseler  argues 
that  the  quarrel  in  Galatians  happened  before  the  coun- 
cil, and  after  Paul's  visit  in  Acts  18. 

Gal.  2  :  13.  Shows  that  Barnabas  does  not  agree  with 
Paul.  Just  after  the  council  in  Acts  there  is  given  the 
quarrel  of  Barnabas  with  Panl.  This  is  probably  the 
same  dispute,  and  agrees  with  Mark's  conduct  in  the 
case.  But  Peter's  conduct  does  not  prove  he  did  not 
agree  to  the  decision  of  the  council.  The  narrative  in 
Galatians  proves  this  quarrel  was  not  a  division  in  doc- 
trine and  principle.  Paul's  charge  upon  Peter  is  that  he 
did  not  live  up  to  what  he  himself  required  of  the  Gen- 
tiles, therefore  the  charge  is  Peter's  inconsistent  personal 
practices.  Baur  objects: — Why  does  Acts  not  mention 
this  quarrel  ?  He  says  that  the  omission  is  intentional, 
as  if  the  quarrel  was  merely  a  trifling  difterence  in  regard 
to  Mark.  It  is  further  argued  by  some  that  the  quarrel 
does  show  a  difference  of  belief,  as  Peter  still  continued 


91 

to  preach  to  the  Jews.  These  siime  differences  bear  with 
increasing  force  against  James  in  Acts,  because  he 
favors  Paul,  yet  insists  tliat  the  Gentiles  should  observe 
the  Mosaic  law.  (6.)  Doctrinal  position  different.  Acts 
makes  Paul  allow  circumcision.  In  Galatians  no  com- 
promise. Answer  :  In  Acts  the  parties  are  the  Church 
against  Paul,  but  in  Galatians  it  is  the  Judaizers  or  indi- 
vidual enemies  against  l*aul.  In  Acts  he  does  not  allow 
Gentiles  to  compromise  their  liberty  in  use  of  meats,  and 
classes  fornication  along  with  them  ;  (hence  the  latter  is 
morally  impure,  which  he  denies  in  Corintliians  ;)  yet 
in  Acts  21  submits  to  ordinances  and  allows  Gentile  con- 
verts to  be  subjected  to  them.  Acts  says  the  decree  pac- 
ified the  churches  :  yet  in  the  epistles  it  is  never  men- 
tioned, but  Paul  takes  opposite  ground  to  it.  The 
charge  is  not  only  one  of  inconsistenc}',  but  if  Acts  is 
true,  he  was  guilty  of  intentional  suppression  of  the  most 
important  point  with  his  enemies.  Wieseler's  view  is 
that  Gal.  2  is  later  than  Acts  15.  The  decree  had  tem- 
porary force,  but  the  boldness  of  the  Judaizers  liad  forced 
Paul  to  higher  ground.  But  this  admits  change  of 
ground.  Paul's  gospel  is  a  new  thing.  Jewish  Chris- 
tians believed  in  Messiah's  death  and  resurrection  as 
testimony  to  the  law.  The  Gentiles  were  to  be  brought 
in  at  the  second  advent.  Paul  is  gradually  emancipated 
from  Jewish  prejudices.  Pressure  is  brought  to  bear 
upon  him  at  Antiocii,  and  this  is  the  turning  point.  He 
sees  the  danger  of  ritual  observance,  and  declares  cir- 
cumcision opposed  to  the  freedom  of  the  Gospel.  He 
goes  to  Jerusalem  to  be  at  council  v^rith  the  other  Apos- 
tles, taking  Titus  with  him  as  specimen  of  a  Greek  con- 
vert. Apostles  are  convinced  that  a  great  work  is  going 
on.  They  agree  to  stand  aloof,  but  still  adhere  to  the 
doctrine  of  circumcision.  They  tell  him  to  w'ork  on 
alone.  The  extreme  Judaizers  do  not  go  so  far.  None 
of  them  recognize  Paul's  Apostleship,  nor  that  his  converts 
are  members  of  the  Christian  church,  but  they  merely 
admit  them  to  the  position  of  "  proselytes  of  the  gate." 
The  conversion  of  the  Gentiles  is  with  them  a  mere  side 
issue.  From  this  point,  henceforth,  a  split  is  recognized 
in  the  Jewish  Church.      Lipsius  thus  far  differs  from 


92 

Baur  ill  his  new  view  as  to  the  creed  of  Acts  15,  (which 
is  that  the  decree  of  the  Council  is  false),  Baur  rejectn, 
Lipsius  accepts  it.  In  other  particulars  they  ajj^ree. 
Wieseler  yields  the  question  that  there  is  a  change  of 
doctrine.  At  next  conference  (Gal.  2)  higher  ground  is 
taken.  The  interval,  however,  is  too  short  for  such  a 
change.  It  is  not  probable  that  the  circumcision  of  Jew- 
ish Christians  was  prohibited  when  Gal.  was  written. 
Lightfoot  says  there  is  no  real  inconsistency,  only  a 
difference  of  tone.  In  Acts  it  is  conciliatory,  and  in  Gal. 
severe.  In  Gal.  Paul  speaks,  and  in  Acts  he  consents, 
and  Apostles  speak.  In  Acts,  the  wiiole  Jewish  church 
party  is  addressed,  and  honest  conviction  is  appealed  to. 
In  Gal.,  persistent  enemies  and  deniers  of  the  truth  are 
the  parties.  In  Acts,  circumcision  is  an  allowable  cus- 
tom, in  Gal.  it  is  an  enforced  ritualism,  but  the  doctrine 
is  the  same.  In  Acts,  liberty  is  recognized,  for  conces- 
sions are  asked  for  charity's  sake,  but  there  is  no  dilier- 
ence  in  doctrine.  The  epistles  establish  the  points  given 
in  Acts.  All  the  Apostles  (Acts  15)  lay  the  same  foun- 
dation for  salvation  as  Paul  does  in  Gal,  Our  knowledge 
of  the  intention  of  Paul  depends  upon  epistles  as  well 
as  upon  Acts,  In  Romans  he  admits  prior  right  of  the 
Jews, — is  a  Jew  to  the  Jews,  This  one  change  is  against 
him.  So  in  Corinthians  Paul  allows  the  use  of  meats 
forbidden  in  Acts.  No  difference  in  p^rinciple  but  in 
application.  Voluntary  compromises  were  regulated  by 
circumstances.  This  question  in  Europe  has  assumed 
different  proportions.  It  could  not  be  expected  that 
Jewish  rules  would  be  observed  in  Gentile  society.  The 
eating  of  meats  with  reference  to  idolatry  is  all  one,  but 
not  with  reference  to  Jewish  circumstances.  Doctrinal 
ground  is  the  same,  for  practice  is  declared  to  be  indif- 
ferent. But  Paul  never  mentions  the  Council  in  Gal.  or 
Cor.  because  he  assumes  this  was  well  known,  or  he  may 
have  avoided  reference  to  it  out  of  regard  to  his  own 
independent  authority.  The  whole  system  of  modern 
attack  on  N".  T.  canon  fails  at  this  point.  Baur  quotes 
contemporary  literature,  and  attenjpts  to  show  that  the 
abandonment  of  Jewish  customs  was  gradual.  Hence 
Acts  belongs  to  later  times,  when  Jews  had  become  more 


93 

liberal.  (Vide  Liglitfoot,  Gal.,)  Brinsrino^  in  Gentiles 
was  great  triumph  of  the  church,  example  of  the  power 
of  love,  sacrifice  of  personal  opinion,  pride  of  birth  and 
nationality.  All  O.  T.  traditions  on  one  aide,  all  hatred 
of  Jews  by  Gentiles  on  the  other.  It  was  the  conspicuous 
fact  of  the  time.  Lightfoot  saj's  :  "•  To  impose  circum- 
cision, would  deny  that  Gospel  was  a  new  covenant."  If 
the  initiatory  rite  of  the  old  economy  be  denied,  there  is 
involved  the  principles  which  become  dogmas  of  the  sys- 
tem of  grace.  Controversy  would  tlius  have  been  per- 
petuated. Yet  sacrifices  were  united  in  one  and  the  same 
cliurch  with  culture  and  freedom,  and  not  by  Apostolic 
authority  or  union  in  external  worship,  but  by  moulding 
power  of  faith  and  love.  Peter's  course  at  Antioch  is  an 
illustration.  1.  It  shows  that  the  effect  of  the  decree  was 
to  admit  Gentile  Christians  to  absolute  equality.  2.  It 
illustrates  the  persistency  of  the  Judaizing  party.  Their 
position  is  hencefortli  changed.  Those  who  opposed 
Paul  become  actively  hostile  to  the  Apostles  and  church 
— become  Pharisees  and  separatists.  8.  It  illustrates  the 
difference  effected  by  a  change  of  locality.  Although 
there  were  Jews  at  Antioch,  Peter  ate  with  the  Gentiles, 
but  when  Jews  came  from  Jerusalem,  he  refused  to  do  so. 
Some  try  to  prove  that  Peter  was  right,  and  that  being 
inspired,  his  conduct  is  for  our  example,  but  this  over- 
looks the  fact,  that  1.  Example  is  only  binding  when  it 
can  be  proved  that  it  was  so  intended,  and  inspiration 
does  not  secure  infallibility  in  personal  conduct.  Wiese- 
ler  finds  a  difficulty  in  collating  Gal.  2;  Acts  18  :  21,  and 
1  Cor.  16.  In  Gal.  2  :  10  we  learn  that  at  the  council 
Paul  was  exhorted  to  remember  the  poor.  Paul  said 
that  he  had  already  done  so,  (Gal.  2  :  10).  But,  it  is 
urged,  collections  were  not  made  until  after  the  counci  1 
(1  Cor.  16,  and  Acts  18  :  21).  But  Paul  had  already  pre- 
viously made  some  collections,  (e.  g.,  Acts  11 :  29),  and 
this  charity  served  to  mitigate  in  some  degree  the  evils 
incident  upon  the  controversy. 

Period  III.  Second  Journey.  Acts  XV :  36 — 
XVIII:  22.  A.  D.  51-53.  Comprises  two  great  events. 
The  Gospel  is  carried  to  Europe,  and  Paul  begins  to  write 
his  epistles.     The  wisdom  of  Providence  in  the  choice  of 


94 

time  is  apparent.  The  security  of  the  Gentiles  is  attained 
and  their  freedom  established.  A  continuous  line  of 
churches  is  established  from  Antioch  westward.  Next 
comes  Greece,  more  remote  from.  Jerusalem.  Philippi, 
Thessalonica,  Corinth  and  Athens  open  a  new  stage.  In 
this  emergency  and  extremity  of  the  church  there  was  a 
necessity  for  Paul's  letters.  New  com.plications  arise 
which  are  treated  in  the  epistles.  In  the  increase  of  doc- 
trinal discussion  and, in  the  internal  development  of  N. 
T.  doctrine  we  see  adaptation  to  the  times.  The  history 
of  the  church  precedes  the  doctrine.  This  the  proper 
date  of  the  ejiistles.  From  historical  illustration  and 
recognition  of  doctrine  of  grace  we  pass  to  argumenta- 
tive epistles,  because  opponents  continue  their  attacks. 
Epistle  to  Galaiians  now  becomes  possible,  but  not  be- 
fore Jewish  o})position  calls  forth  that  wliichthe  church  is 
now  prepared  to  receive,  justification  by  faith  and  sanctifi- 
cation  by  grace  alone.  The  development  of  the  doctrine 
follows  step  by  step  the  progress  of  the  church.  Proposi- 
tion for  a  journey  originates  with  Paul.  BarnaV^as  insists 
on  taking  Mark,  Paul  refuses,  and  a  separation  ensues 
which  results  in  widening  the  work.  Little  of  Barnabas 
is  now  known.  He  went  to  Cyprus,  but  it  is  not  known 
whether  he  desired  to  form  a  new  church.  Paul's  desire 
is  to  visit  old  churches.  He  takes  with  him  Silas,  who 
had  been  sent  from  Jerusalem  to  Antioch  with  the  decree. 
Paul  hastil}' passes  through  Sj-ria  and  Cilicia,  confirming 
the  churches.  This  is  the  first  mention  of  churches  in 
Cilicia.  Probably  founded  when  Paul  was  in  Tarsus. 
Hence  we  should  not  limit  the  progress  of  the  church  to 
the  history  in  Acts.  Confirming  here  not  restricted  to 
Catechists.  Some  think  that  it  includes  the  establish- 
ment of  new  churches.  Shows  that  Paul  came  to 
strengthen  them.  (Chapter  16.)  Coming  to  Derbe  and 
Lystra  they  find  Timothy.  Some  say  his  home  was  in 
Lystra,  because  the  nearest  antecedent  to  "  there "  is 
Lystra.  Others  say  Derbe.  There  was  no  synagogue  in 
Lystra.  Yet  Timothy  was  reared  in  the  faith.  ("Paul's 
sou  in  the  faith,")  hence  converted,  probably,  on  Paul's 
first  tour.  Paul  now  circumcises  him  to  give  him  access 
to  the  Jews.     This  act  shows  that  Paul  was  not  bound 


95 

by  forms  coiiceniiDC^  circninoisioii.  Good  effect  of  the 
decree  is  metitioned  v.  4.  Tliev  next  pass  through 
Phrygia  and  Galatia,  The  narrative  moves  rapidly  over 
this  part  of  the  journoy.  Although  large  churches  were 
founded,  and  that  of  Galatia  hy  Paul  personally,  where 
he  was  well  received,  5'Ot  it  is  not  mentioned  here  by 
Luke.  We  learn  from  Galatiana  that  Paul  was  now  in 
bad  health.  Wliy  is  Luke  so  brief  here  ?  1.  The 
churches  of  Galatia  are  associated  with  the  bitterest  con- 
flict of  Paul's  life,  therefore  Paul  compromised,  and  Luke 
does  not  metition  it.  2.  It  is  said  Galatia  was  out  of  the 
line  of  subsequent  development  of  the  church,  and  its 
history  is  of  use  chiefly  for  doctrinal  purposes.  3.  As 
neither  Acts  nor  Galatians  mentions  any  great  cities  in 
which  churches  were  formed,  many  small  churches  came 
into  existence,  and  it  was  not  in  Luke's  plan  to  notice 
them. 

Mode  by  which  journey  to  Europe  w^as  determined. 
It  was  supernatural.  Paul  designed  to  go  to  the  west  coast 
of  Asia  Minor,  but  the  Holy  Spirit  forbade  him.  It  was 
either  a  direct  communication  or  an  unusual  providen- 
tial hindrance.  They  intended  to  go  to  Bithynia,  but  the 
Spirit  suffered  them  not,  and  they  came  to  Troas,  where 
Paul  had  a  vision  which  explained  previous  hindrances. 
Troas  was  a  Roman  colony,  scene  of  oldest  contact  be- 
tween Asia  and  Europe.  The  call  comes  from  Macedonia, 
probably  because  nearest  land  to  Europe,  and  occupying 
a  position  of  mediation.  It  was  the  stronghold  ofRoman 
domination  in  the  East.  Population  simple  and  trust- 
worthy. The  church  in  Philippi  purest  in  I^.  T.  and  most 
beloved  by  Paul.  Renan  compares  its  inhabitants  to  Ger- 
man peasantry. 

Authorship  and  sources  of  Acts.  Here  in  v.  12  we  meet 
for  theflrst  time,  the  flrst  person  plural  "  we  endeavored," 
*'  we  came."  These  "  we  "  passages  are  16  :  10-15;  20: 
5-15;  21:  1-18  and  27:  1-28.  This  opens  up  two  im- 
portant questions  as  to  authorship  and  sources  of  the 
book.  The  old  opinion  is  that  the  companion  was  an 
eye-witness.  Schleiermacher  says  MSS.  left  by  Timothy, 
and  incorporated  by  Luke  into  the  narrative.  This  is 
Documentary  Theory.     Inasmuch  as  comparison  of  style 


96 

reveals  no  ditterence,  therefore  he  concludes  that  the 
whole  book  was  written  by  Timoth3^  Silas  is  sometimes 
sinajled  out  as  the  author.  But  1.  Timothy  is  not  the 
author.  There  is  no  break  in  the  narrative  where  for- 
eign document  could  be  introduced.  2.  Plienomenon 
ceases  at  Philippi,  but  Timothy  goes  with  Paul  to  Thessa- 
lonica,  and  then  to  Berea  he  is  not  mentioned  till  19: 
22,  when  sent  from  Paul  at  Corinth.  He  was  not  sepa- 
rated from  Paul  all  that  time.  A  most  important  event 
occurs  when  Timothy  is  away,  (uproar  at  Ej>hesus,  v.  23- 
41.)  3.  Chapter  20  :  1-3.  Timothy  is  with  Paul.  Yet 
there  is  no  minuteness  of  detail.  Eighteen  months  con- 
densed in  3  verses.  4.  "  We"  occurs  when  Timothy  is 
included  in  the  list  of  companions  of  Paul  sent  away, 
yet  "  we  "  remain.  Silas  could  not  have  remained,  for 
after  chapter  18  he  does  not  appear  in  Acts.  Common 
view  is  that  Luke  is  the  author.  One  question  remain- 
ing is  this:  Was  Luke  the  author  only  of  the  "we"  pass- 
ages? Were  these  documents  worked  over  by  the 
pseudo-Luke,  and  the  "we"  passages  retained  by  his 
(Luke's)  authority  to  concilid^te  parties  in  the  church? 
They  say  that  documents  were  left  by  Luke,  and  after- 
wards incorporated  by  a  later  writer.  But  on  this  as- 
sumption the  style  should  differ.  Hence  a  rewriting  by 
the  compiler.  This  is  to  get  a  late  date  for  Acts.  It  is 
not  later  than  the  year  A.  D.  80.  And  this  argument  is 
derived  from  the  language.  According  to  which  a  late 
authority  rewrites  the  "  we  "  passages,  thus  coming  over 
to  apologetic  ground.  If  a  traveling  companion,  he 
would  have  written  more  graphically  in  many  places. 
The  answer  is  he  was  eye-witness,  but  not  on  every 
occasion.  Paul  mentions  Luke  in  his  epistles,  but 
this  view  is  not  concurred  in  b}'  the  Rationalists.  The 
same  man  writes  the  whole  book.  Real  proof  of  author- 
ship lies  in  perfect  uniformity  and  constant  tradition. 
Two  great  lines  of  discrimination.  The  assimilation  of 
Peter  to  Paul,  and  the  authorship  of  "  we  "  passages. 
We  see  the  providential  purpose  of  Luke  in  joining  Paul 
just  here.  Paul  on  the  eve  of  a  great  advance.  Doctri- 
nal points  mainly  settled.  The  church  must  be  estab- 
lished in  Europe,  where  it  should  find   its    chief  seat. 


97 

This  gives  Luke  a  fine  point  of  view  of  the  stages  of 
Paul's  work.  In  his  writing,  he  looks  back,  and  is  thus 
able  to  understand  tlie  relations  of  his  views.  It  is  the 
history  of  the  extension  of  the  church  to  the  Gentiles, 
and  establishment  of  the  doctrine  of  grace.  Luke's 
Greek  culture  and  J'aul's  companionship  well  fit  him  t» 
be  the  historian  of  the  N.  T. 

They  came  v»-ith  a  fair  wind  to  Neapolis,  which  is  not 
an  influential  place,  thence  to  Philippi.  Here  the  first 
church  was  founded  by  Paul  in  Europe.  Some  argue 
from  epistle  to  Romans  and  decree  of  Claudius,  A.  J). 
54,  that  the  church  at  Rome  was  established  before  this. 
"  First  city;*'  not  the  capital,  nor  the  first  to  which  Paul 
came  but  first  in  importance.  Gold  mines  in  the  vicinity. 
Here  a  battle  was  fought  A.  T>.  42  between  Brutus  and 
Cassius  and  Octavius  and  Antony.  Augustus  made  it  a 
colony.  It  was  a  center  of  military  power  and  had  the 
Jus  Kalicum,  i.  e.,  privileges  of  Roman  citizenship  and 
exemption  from  land  tax  ;  as  such  both  exempted  from 
scourging,  and  in  ordinary  cases  from  arrest,  and  entitled 
to  appeal  from  the  local  magistrate  to  the  emperor.  This 
gave  the  church  protection, and  prepared  for  Paul's  appeal 
to  Csesar.  Here  Paul  came  in  contact  with  Roman  Gov- 
ernor. Antioch.  Pisidia  and  Iconium  were  colonies,  but 
not  mentioned  because  no  contact  with  authorities.  There 
were  few  Jews  here  and  no  synagogue,  but  they  had 
erected  a  house  of  worship  near  the  river,  npoazoy^  means 
"  prayer-place,"  occurs  34  times  in  the  N.  T.  and  gen- 
erally in  this  sense.  Lydia,  or  the  woman  of  Lydia,  was 
baptized  here  and  her  whole  house.  First  mention  of 
baptism  in  Paul's  journe>'s.  Girl  with  spirit  of  divina- 
tion. Contact  of  Christianity  with  heathenism.  Divina- 
tion conducted  under  the  auspices  of  Apollo,  very  attract- 
ive to  the  heathen  mind.  On  the  way  to  the  7t(}oazuyrq 
Paul  is  molested  by  a  girl  possessed  of  the  spirit  of  divi- 
nation :  an  evil  spirit,  but  people  thought  it  was  the 
spirit  of  Apollo.  The  state  of  this  "  female  slave,"  re- 
sembled the  phenomena  of  somnambulism.  She  had 
probably  frequent  opportunities  of  hearing  Paul,  and  his 
words  had  left  an  impression  on  her  heart.  In  her  con- 
vulsive fits  these  impressions  were  revived,  and  mingling 


98 

what  she  had  heard  from  Paul,  with  her  own  heathenish 
notions,  she  frequently  followed  the  preachers  to  the 
izpoatoy^fj  crying  after  them,  (v.  17.)  Do  Luke  and  Paul 
teach  that  the  spirit  of  divination  was  a  reality  ?  Yes  : 
there  is  no  mere  juggling  here.  A  demon  is  cast  out  of 
the  girl  ;  and  Paul  says  in  Corinthians  that  the  heathen 
sacrifice  to  devils  when  they  sacrifice  to  idols.  Two  alter- 
natives are  here  presented  :  1.  Either  idols  were  mere 
cheats  ;  then  this  case  and  those  of  Christ  involved  no  more 
than  heathen  oracles.  Thus  all  may  be  referred  to  natural 
causes;  or  2.  If  this  was  a  devil,  then  what  the  people 
generally  thought  was  under  the  control  of  oracles  was 
the  work  of  demons.  This  does  not  naturally  follow  as 
an  exegeticalfactin  this  case.  In  Luke  11 :  19:  "  By  whom 
do  your  sons  cast  them  out?"  Christ  teaches  that  demons 
are  intelligences,  and  the  belief  is  common  that  the 
N.  T.  recognizes  that  the  sorceries  of  the  heathen  were 
not  altogether  unreal,  but  presided  over  by  Satan,  who 
used  religious  belief  of  the  people  to  lead  them  away 
from  God. 

Persecution  from  heathen  sources  now  begins.  Persecu- 
tion by  the  Pharisees  was  based  on  religious  grounds: 
that  from  the  Romans  not  till  later.  They  prided  them- 
selves on  their  tolerance.  Persecution  because  of  refusal 
to  recognize  heathen  sacrifices  was  not  begun  till  much 
later.  Here,  as  in  Ephesus,  the  motive  is  selfish  and 
monetary.  Owners  of  the  girl  had  lost  their  trade.  So 
avarice  to-day  is  the  motive  in  heathen  lands.  The  pre- 
text was,  that  the  Christians  taught  what  was  unlawful 
for  Romans  to  believe.  But  this  was  an  appeal  to  prej- 
udice. Any  worship  not  authorized  by  the  state  was 
forbidden,  but  Jewish  religion  was  authorized,  and  Jews 
and  Christians  were  yet  classed  together,  therefore  the 
charge  was  illegal,  no  breach  of  the  law  was  established. 
Magistrates  carried  away  by  excitement.  Paul  and  Silas 
stripped,  and  beaten,  and  cast  into  prison.  Luke  and 
Timothy  are  not  mentioned.  The  jailor's  is  the  second 
family  baptized.  Magistrates  in  the  morning  command 
release  of  the  prisoners.  Some  think  the}^  were  terrified 
by  the  earthquake.  Others,  that  they  intended  from  the 
first  to  release  them,  and  their  motive  in  scourging  and 


99 

imprisoning  tlieni  \va8  to  protect  them  fron\  the  mob. 
Paul  refuses  to  go.  Why  does  he  appeal  now,  and  not 
before  he  suffered  the  abuse  ?  Proi)ably  out  of  regard 
for  the  welfare  of  the  church.  Tlie  fear  into  which  the 
magistrates  were  thrown  was  not  without' its  value.  A 
hold  was  tlius  gained  upon  the  people.  The  church  was 
left  on  better  footing,  and  put  in  a  position  of  honour, 
and  Koman  law  protects  Christianity  on  its  first  entrance 
into  Europe.  Skeptics  say  this  is  not  like  human  na- 
ture. Paul  waits  for  the  Spirit's  direction.  They  now 
leave  the  city.  Here  the  narrative  resumes  the  third  per- 
son. Inference  is  that  Luke  remained  behind  and  rejoined 
Paul  (chapter  20:  5.,  A.  D.  58,)  just  before  the  arrest. 
During  this  interval  of  seven  years  Luke  takes  charge  of 
the  Philippian  cliurch.  Neander  thinks  Timothy  is  left 
also.  Instruction  here.  He  trains  them  as  helpers,  and 
thus  multiplies  his  influence  when  he  himself  is  forced 
to  leave.  The  skeptics  repudiate  the  whole  narrative  at 
Philippi,  or  deride  the  supernatural  element.  Paul  alone 
entered  Europe,  deserted  by  the  other  Apostles,  in  oppo- 
sition to  them  and  to  the  Jewish  church.  They  say  all 
the  incidents  of  the  narrative  unnatural.  Miracles  unnec- 
essary. Praj'er  by  night,  and  earthquake  shaking  off 
the  shackles,  and  his  appeal  to  Roman  citizenship,  unlikely 
and  untrue.  The  tendency  is  to  honor  Paul  and  assim- 
ilate him  to  Peter  in  his  deliverance  from  prison,  ch.  12. 
Journey  to  T/iessalonica,  Berea,  Athens.  Ch.  XVII. 
Thessalonica  (17  :  1-9)  When  they  had  passed  through 
Amphipolis  they  came  to  Thessalonica,  where  was  the  syn- 
agogue of  the  Jews.  This  determined  the  character  of 
persecution.  Many  Jews  settled  there.  A  place  of  great 
political  importance.  Its  situation  determined  its  sub- 
sequent importance.  At  the  head  of  the  Thermaic  gulf, 
and  the  highway  between  the  Adriatic  and  the  Helles- 
pont. The  old  name  was  Therma,  given  because  of  the 
warm  springs  in  the  neighborhood.  After  death  of 
Alexander  many  Jews  went  there.  It  was  the  center 
of  the  whole  country,  and  prominent  in  the  history 
of  the  church.  It  is  now  called  Salonica.  Ranks  next 
Constantinople.  Population  from  60,000  to  70,000. 
The  account  of  Paul's  labors  at  Thessalonica  instructive 


100 

through  brief.  Founding  of  the  church  and  personal  inci- 
dents present  his  mode  of  labor.  He  preached  in  syna- 
gogue. There  were  conversions  among  Jews,  proselytes 
and  chief  women.  (Acts  17  :  4.)  The  epistles  which  sup- 
plement the  account  in  Acts  inform  us  of  Gentile  converts. 
(1  Thess.  2:  11,  14.)  Somo  came  directly  from  the  hea- 
then, so  exhortations  are  adapted  to  a  church  composed 
of  Gentiles  aud  Jews.  This  a  general  type  of  church's 
composition.  The  companions  of  Paul  were  Silas,  and 
probably  Timothy.  The  latter  was  with  him  just  before. 
From  the  epistles  we  learn  that  he  supported  himself  by 
manual  labor.  His  trade  was  that  of  a  tent-maker.  In 
Thessalonica  he  labored  day  and  night.  (1  Thess.  2:9; 
2  Thess.  3  :  7-10.)  This  wan  his  usual  practice.  Refer- 
red to  in  2  Cor.  and  Acts  20.  Exception  is  made  in  case 
of  Philippi.  Phil.  4  ,  15,  16.  While  in  Thessalonica, 
he  receives  aid  from  Philippi  and  also  when  in  Rome. 
The  reason  is  that  hostility  did  not  exist  at  Philippi. 
We  learn  from  the  epistles  that  the  church  was  organ- 
ized and  officers  appointed.  (1  Thess.  5  :  12.)  There 
were  also  extraordinary  manifestations  of  the  Holy  Spirit. 
(vs.  19,  20.)  Objection  is  raised  to  the  fact  that  Paul 
preached  three  Sabbaths  in  the  synagogue.  It  is  said  that 
this  is  too  short  a  time  for  so  much  work.  But  this  does 
not  exclude  labor  out  of  the  synagogue.  He  may  have 
preached  elsewhere  on  other  Sabbaths.  Progress  of  the 
church  must  not  be  judged  as  related  to  ordinary  means. 
Doctrine  of  Paul  at  Thessalonica  :  1.  We  have  it  in  Acts 
17  :  3.  Christ  must  sufler  and  rise  again  from  the  dead. 
He  opens  up  the  Messianic  doctrine  from  the  prophecies 
oftheO.  T.  The  humility  and  death  of  the  Messiah  a 
great  stumbling-block  to  the  Jews.  Paul  shows  that  O. 
T.  teaches  the  necessity  for  Christ  to  suffer  and  rise 
again.  Therefore  the  necessity  for  Christ's  sufferings  is 
established.  Interesting  point  is  that  Paul  here  dwells 
on  this  particular.  He  also  teaches  that  this  Jesus  was 
Christ.  This  is  an  advance  on  Peter's  and  other  previous 
discourses.  This  is  all  from  Acts.  2.  From  the  epistles. 
He  insists  upon  the  doctrine  of  salvation  by  faith,  and 
the  necessity  of  holiness  of  life.  This  against  the  Phar- 
isaic influence  in  the  church,  (2  Thess.  2  :  12.)  and  to  pre- 


101 

vent  antinomiaii  abuse  of  the  doctrine.  This  was  a 
mistake  which  the  Gentiles  were  apt  to  make.  Paul 
shows  that  holiness  of  life  must  accompan}-  faith.  lie 
exhorts  them  to  avoid  fornication  and  extortion.  Notice 
how  historical  necessity  of  the  church  led  to  develop- 
ment of  doctrine.  Here  was  a  practical  necessity  arising 
out  of  antinomian  views.  3.  From  the  epistles.  The 
doctrine  of  tlie  second  coming  of  Christ,  and  the  resur- 
rection. Error  on  this  subject  was  the  main  reason  for 
the  epistles.  He  dwelt  on  this  subject  (1.)  because  the 
doctrine  of  the  suifering  Messiah  seemed  contrary  to  the 
predictions  of  his  reign.  He  sliowed  that  Christ's  king- 
dom should  Still  be  glorious,  although  he  should  first 
suffer.  (2.)  Also  the  presence  of  personal  persecution 
led  him  to  the  comfort  of  this  doctrine.  Persecution 
was  an  obscuration  of  divine  power  and  glory.  It 
needed  explanation  (1  Thess.  2:  1-8.)  4.  Doctrine  of 
Christ's  resurrection  could  not  be  dwelt  on  without  dwel- 
ling on  the  resurrection  of  the  believer  also.  1  Thess.  4: 14. 
It  was  too  earlj'  for  Judean  controversy  to  have  reached 
these  remote  churches.  This  throws  light  on  the  account 
of  persecution  in  Acts.  Persecution  which  drove  Paul 
from  Thessalouica  was  not  the  usual  Jewish  charge,  nor 
that  at  Philippi,  but  treason.  They  accuse  Paul  of  being 
a  political  disturber.  "  These  do  contrary  to  the  decrees 
of  Cffisar,  saying  that  there  is  another  king,  one  Jesus." 
This  troubled  rulers  and  people.  Paul's  doctrine  of  the 
reign  of  Christ  was  perverted,  as  antagonistic  to  Csesar. 
Natural  that  this  charge  might  originate.  Method  of 
Jewish  leaders  different  in  this  case  from  any  previous 
ones.  They  stirred  up  persons  of  the  baser  sort,  and 
assaulted  the  house  of  Jason.  The  intention  was  not  to 
mob  the  Apostle,  as  would  be  inferred  from  A.  V.  Thes- 
salouica was  not  a  colony,  governed  by  a  triumvirate, 
but  a  free  city.  The  assembly  of  the  people  was  its  chief 
governing  body.  They  took  Jason  and  exacted  securit}' 
from  him.  The  brethren  sent  Paul  and  Silas  by  night 
to  Berea.  Critics  raise  two  objections.  1.  Too  early 
in  Paul's  ministry  for  Jews  to  say  that  he  had  turned 
the  world  upside  down.  Answer  :  Illustrates  rapidity  of 
success  and  fear  of  the  Jews.     2.  Political  ground  of  per- 


102 

secutiou  was  not  made  till  close  of  2nd  century.  Answer  : 
But  the  Government  did  not  persecute  till  then,  and  the 
life  of  Christ  shows  the  persecution  of  the  Jews  was 
foreshadowed  by  their  conduct. 

Paul  at  Berea.  XVII:  10-14.  30  miles  southwest 
of  Thessalonica.  Not  mentioned  elsewhere  in  N.  T. 
People  of  high  character.  They  searched  the  Scriptures, 
and  therefore  many  believed  among  the  proselytes  and  up- 
per class  of  women.  Renan  remarks  :  Wh}'  is  this  church 
not  mentioned  elsewhere?  Some  say  they  were  safe 
from  future  opposition,  or  they  were  merged  into  the 
church  of  the  Thessalonians.  The  Jews  from  Thessa- 
lonica pursued  Paul  to  Berea,  and  raised  persecution 
against  him.  The  same  method  is  there  employed  for 
stirring  up  the  people.  Paul  escapes  from  Macedonia  to 
Greece.  Silas  and  Timothy  remain.  This  is  the  end  of 
his  first  Macedonian  mission.  He  left  his  work  involved. 
Yet  this  is  one  of  the  best  results  of  his  life.  None  of 
the  other  churches  which  he  founded  have  the  character 
the  N.  T.  gives  these  churches,  for  sympathy,  liberality 
and  orthodoxy.  Did  Paul  go  by  land  or  sea  ?  V.  14. 
d»^  "as  it  were"  do<'S  not  affirm  or  deny.  Probably  by 
sea.  Easiest  way  and  no  intervening  cities  mentioned. 
Comes  to  Greece  proper. 

Paul  at  Athens.  XVII:  15-34.  Bereau  companions 
leave  him  with  message  to  Silas  and  Timothy  to  rejoin 
him,  which  they  do  when  he  reaches  Corinth.  The 
purity  of  the  Gospel  is  secured  before  it  is  preached  to 
the  cultured  Greeks  at  Athens  and  Alexandria.  Paul 
now  stands  before  a  highly  cultured,  philosophic  people. 
The  discourse  is  given  in  full,  but  no  church  founded 
either  here  or  at  Alexandria,  Not  many  wise  were  called 
in  Paul's  uwn  day.  The  Gospel  had  less  influence  in 
Alexandria  than  in  any  city  elsewhere.  Athens  and 
Alexandria  were  the  only  great  cities  where  the  Gospel 
did  not  take  root.  They  were  not  so  receptive,  and  the 
simplicity  of  the  Gospel  was  the  longer  preserved  from 
the  taint  of  philosophy.  These  cities  were  so  imbued 
with  pride  of  intellect  that  they  could  not  receive  Chris- 
tianity. Later  period  of  Paul's  life  full  of  the  evil  efliects 
arising  from  the  mixture  of  Christianity  and  philosophy. 


103 

If  the  head  schools  of  Athens  had  iirst  become  Chris- 
tian, then  how  different  would  have  been  the  result. 
The  Athenian  treatment  of  Paul  is  gentlemanly.  There 
is  manifested  curiosity  and  refined  sarcasm.  He  is  not 
arrested,  but  politely  asked  to  go  to  the  Areopagus.  Polite 
insincerity,  "  we  will  hear  thee  again."  The  Areopagus, 
a  supreme  court  with  independent  jurisdiction  and  un- 
limited power.  Baur  says  Acts  describes  a  trial.  It  is 
a  question  whether  the  court  was  present  or  not.  Of  the 
four  schools,  only  two  are  mentioned  in  this  account, 
those  of  Zeno  and  Epicurus.  The  Lyceum  and  Academy 
and  Agora  lay  further  out.  Thej^  are  selected  as  examples 
of  the  antagonism  of  philosophy  to  Christianity,  (See 
Lightfoot  on  Paul,  and  Seneca,  Com.  on  Philippians.) 
Paul  stood  in  the  midst  of  Mars  Hill.  The  temples  of  Mars 
and  Eumenides  were  below  liim.  Colossus  of  Minerva 
near  by,  standing  almost  beneath  its  shade.  Saw  suc- 
cession of  rich  statues — the  works  of  Phidias.  Saw  ob- 
jects of  devotion  in  the  grand  temple  of  Theseus.  All 
this  enhanced  by  coloriui^  of  gold  and  silver.  The  cit}' 
was  wholly  given  to  idolatry.  His  position  illustrates 
the  declaration  of  God  the  Creator,  before  the  flood. 
He  does  not  begin  therefore  with  the  O.  T.  and  prove 
that  Jesus  was  the  Messiah,  nor  does  he  show  God's 
abhorrence  of  idolatry,  but  he  is  conciliatory  and  com- 
plimentary in  tone.  "  Too  superstitious,"  means  very 
devout  in  fear  of  the  gods.  To  the  fourth  century  this 
was  the  recognized  boast  of  the  Athenians.  "  Tlie  un- 
known God  "  should  be  "  an  unknown  God."  There 
were  many  altars  to  unknown  Gods.  The  definite  article 
implies  a  specific  altar.  Among  the  heathen  there  was 
uncertainty  as  to  what  deity  must  be  propitiated.  In 
pagan  writers  it  is  "  ui] known  Gods,""  plural.  In  de- 
scription, the  plural  is  used  instead  of  the  singular,  and 
singular  instead  of  plural.  So  Paul  saw  one  such  altar,  or 
the  inscription  may  have  been  in  the  plural.  Baur  says, 
it  is  instruction  put  in  Paul's  mouth,  in  making  the  peo- 
ple worshipers  of  Jehovah.  Paul  does  not  identify 
Jehovah  with  their  gods.  He  appeals  to  that  which  is 
common  to  all  men,  viz.,  the  sense  of  dependence,  which 
even  polytheism  recognizes,  and  declares  the  reveakdGodi 


104 

the  only  satisfaction.  "  Him  declare  I  unto  you."  From 
this  he  goes  on  to  truths  common  to  natural  and  revealed 
religion.  He  exhibits  the  fundamental  truths  of  Chris- 
tianity, Theology,  Anthropology  and  Christology.  (Vs. 
24,  25.)  He  sets  forth  God  as  creator.  Their  gods  were 
deified  men.  Stoics  thought  that  God  was  the  spirit  of 
the  universe.  Matter  inseparable  from  deity.  Reuter 
says  that  the  Stoics  were  Pantheists.  Epicureans  were 
Atheistical  materialists.  The  reception  of  a  personal 
Savior  was  the  first  necessary  truth  for  these  men. 
In  V.  25  the  doctrine  of  Providence  is  taught,  "  He 
giveth  all  things,"  as  creation  was  taught  in  v.  24. 
(Vs.  26-28.)  Anthropology.  The  unity  of  the  race, 
"  Made  all  of  one  blood  "  opposed  to  their  idea  of  having 
sprung  from  the  soil,  and  of  divine  appointment,  (vs. 
29-31.)  The  moral  government  of  God  is  taught.  Idola- 
try before  allowed,  but  now  men  are  commanded  to  repent, 
because  of  judgment  of  which  the  resurrection  of  Jesus  is 
the  proof.  Stoics  thought  that  the  soul  would  be  burned. 
Resurrection  disbelieved  in  as  an  irrational  idea.  To  the 
Epicureans  pleasure  not  duty  was  the  motive  of  exertion. 
Pain  was  not  an  evil.  Principle  the  same  as  that  of  the 
Sensualist.  In  future  there  would  be  no  soul  without  a 
body.  Both  perish  together.  Hence  to  the  Stoics  the 
resurrection  was  absurd.  These  the  two  ruling  princi- 
ples against  which  Christianity  has  to  contend.  Renan 
says  the  speech  is  that  of  a  rude  iconoclast,  substituting 
for  truth  of  reason  the  superstitions  of  judgment.  Baur 
says  that  it  is  artificial.  The  design  was  to  prove  that 
Christianity  was  superior  to  philosophy  in  its  chief  seat. 
The  whole  story  of  the  Areopagus  arises  from  the 
tradition  that  the  Areopagite  Dionysius  was  the  first 
bishop  of  Athens.  The  introduction  of  the  resur- 
rection was  impossible  at  this  time.  The  converts  made 
to  idolatry  and  philosophy  were  the  last  to  yield.  Athens 
the  last  great  city  where  a  church  was  founded.  Paul 
passes  on  to  Corinth,  where  he  wrote  the  second  epistle 
to  Thessalonians.  Paul  now  becomes  secondary  to  his 
epistles. 


105 

Scheme  of  the  Epistles,  according  to  Hilgenfeld. 

I.  Apostolic  Times. 

1.  Paul  and  his  Epistles. 
1  Thessalonians. 
Galatians. 

1  Corinthians. 

2  Corinthians. 
Romans. 
Philemon. 
Philippians. 


Hebrews. 

2.  Original  Apostles  and  Apostolic  men. 
John  and  Apocalypse. 

Matthew  and  his  Gospel. 
Mark  and  his  Gospel. 
James  and  his  Epistle. 

3.  IJnion-Paulinism. 
Luke  and  his  Gospel. 

The  Acts. 

II.'  Sub- Apostolic  Times. 

Peter  and  his  1st  Epistle. 

2  Thessalonians. 

Colossians. 

Ephesians. 

The  Dentero-Johannic  writings. 

j  Epistles  of  John. 

\  Gospel  of  John. 

Jude  and  his  Epistles. 

The  Pastoral  Epistles. 

2  Peter. 

FIRST  GROUP. 

Epistles  to  Thessalonians.  Special  introduction 
takes  up  two  classes  of  facts.  1.  Time  and  place, 
authenticity,  canonicity,  occasion  and  design  of  each 
epistle.     Also  outline  view  of  the  principal  characteris- 


^  106 

tics  of  the  epistles.  2.  The  historical  facts  therein 
recorded,  additional  and  supplementary.  Confirmatory 
apparently  contradictory.  This  constitutes  an  important 
part  of  Apologetics.  Upon  denial  of  this  harmony  rests 
the  Tiibingen  theory.  Each  epistle  may  be  regarded  as 
throwing  light  on  passages  in  Acts,  e.  g. ,  1.  The  charac- 
ter of  the  church  to  which  the  epistle  was  addressed; 
2,  They  illustrate  the  founding  of  the  church  to  which 
they  were  addressed,  and  the  condition  of  the  church 
from  which  they  w^ere  sent.  More  is  known  of  Paul 
from  his  letters  than  from  Acts.  They  show  the  state 
of  his  mind  and  the  glow  of  his  feeling. 

First  Epistle  to  the  Thessalonians.  Time  and  place 
of  composition  of  first  ep.  to  Thessalonians.  Probably 
early  part  of  the  stay  (18  mos.)  in  Corinth.  (Acts  18  : 
1-18.)  The  occasion  was  the  arrival  of  Timothy  from 
Thessalonica  with  news.  (1  Thess.  3:6)  A  later  date 
is  assigned  by  some.  Either  during  an  unrecorded  jour- 
ney from  Antioch  to  Greece  (Acts  18  :  23),  or  during  his 
three  months'  stay  in  Greece  (Acts  21  :  8).  The  passages 
on  which  the  theory  is  based  are,  1.  1  Thess.  1 :  7,  8. 
The  argument  is  that  this  implies  that  churches  had  been 
founded  in  Corinth,  and  allows  time  for  the  fame  of  the 
Thessalonian  churches  to  be  spread  in  those  places.  But 
six  months  was  sufficient,  and  Corinth  was  a  central 
place.  2.  1  Thess.  3:  I,  2,  6.  Paul  and  Timothy  were 
in  Athens  when  the  letter  was  written.  But  we  know 
that  Timothy  and  Silas  had  been  left  in  Berea  (Acts  17  : 
15,  16),  and  had  rejoined  Paul  in  Corinth.  The  reference 
in  1  Thess.  3  :  6  must  be  to  a  later  visit  to  Athens  re- 
corded in  Acts  20.  But,  either  Timothy  accompanied 
Paul  to  Athens,  and  was  immediately  sent  back  to  Thes- 
salonica, and  rejoined  him  at  Corinth  ;  or  Paul  left  him 
in  Berea,  sends  for  him  from  Athens,  and  rejoins  him  at 
Corinth.  Sylvan  us  also  with  him  w^hen  the  letter  was 
written,  and  he  is  not  mentioned  after  this  visit  to  Cor- 
inth. Acts  18  :  5  and  2  Cor.  1  :  19  identify  the  company 
at  Corinth  at  this  time.  3.  1  Thess.  4  :  13.  Said  to  imply 
that  time  had  elapsed  for  members  of  the  church  to  die; 
but  a  few  months  may  have  been  sufficient  for  this,  or 
the  anxiety  may  have  been  hypothetical — in  prospect  of 


107 

death.  Earlier  date  probable,  becunse  the  circumstances 
of  the  Thessaloiiiaii  visit  were  prominently  before  his 
mind,  causing  him  his  great  anxiety  to  return.  Therefore 
must  be  soon  after  his  leaving  them.  Again,  the  state 
of  the  church  indicates  the  early  stage  of  Christian  life. 
2^0  special  interest  in  great  controversy  is  manifested. 
Great  simplicity,  as  in  church  at  Philippi.  The  nature 
of  their  difficulty  such  as  arises  at  the  beginning  of  the 
life  of  a  church.^  (Compare  1  Thess.  1:6-9;  2^:  13,  14, 
16  ;  3 :  2-5.)  The  first  difficulty  arose  in  connection 
with  the  Advent.  It  was  too  early  for  Judean  contro- 
versy to  reach  the  Macedonian  churches.  The  conclu- 
sion is  thus  almost  certain  that  the  epistle  was  written 
when  Paul  came  to  Corinth  in  the  fall  of  52  A.  J).  We 
know  it  was  the  fall,  because  he  staj'ed  18  months  and  ^ 
left  in  the  spring  (Acts  18  :  21,)  to  attend  the  Passover. 
The  subscription  in  the  A.  V.  to  the  eflfect  that  the  letter 
was  "from  Athens,"  is  derived  from  Theodoret.  This 
opinion  is  based  on  a  mistaken  understanding  of  1  Thess. 
3:6.  It  is  correct  to  place  this  epistle  in  the  first  list. 
Notice  that  the  date  is  only  approximate.  Besides  infor- 
mation above  illustrating  Acts  17,  we  learn  that  severe 
persecution  continued  (2  Thess.  2  :  14 ;  8:3;  1:6),  and 
we  also  learn  of  their  endurance  (1  :  3,  4,  9,  10).  Perse- 
cution arose,  not  from  the  government,  but  from  the  Jews 
who  were  in  a  position  to  stir  up  great  difficulties.  They 
could  perpetuate  persecutions  and  render  Gentile  Chris- 
tians unpopular.  Their  patience  is  commended,  and 
their  steadfastness,  of  which  Timothy  brought  informa- 
tion, is  a  matter  of  admiration.  Paul  was  sent  away 
from  Thessalonica  by  night,  and  it  is  interesting  to  com- 
bine the  statement  in  the  epistles  of  his  desire  to  return. 
(1  Thess.  2  :  17;  3  :  10.)  The  views  by  which  they  were 
brought  to  steadfastness  are  important.  Reference  is 
made  to  their  charity  and  faith  (1  :  3),  to  their  deficien- 
cies and  tendencies  to  corruption.  The  sins  of  the  hea- 
then were  not  entirely  given  up  by  them.  We  find  the 
evils  of  Corinth  here — fornication,  and  covetousness  (4  : 
3-8),  and  dissension  and  disregard  of  church  authority 
(5  :  12,  13).  Especially  fanatical  opinion  and  disquiet  on 
the  subject  of  the  Second  Advent.     (5:11,12.)     They 


108 

were  in  sorrow,  as  those  who  had  no  hope  in  regard  to 
their  departed  friends,  lest  they  should  not  share  in  the 
benefits  of  the  Advent.  (4  :  13.)  The  object  of  writing 
is  to  exhort  against  these  sins  and  instruct  them  con- 
cerning the  Advent. 

Canoniciiy  and  Authenticity.  External  testimony  is  very 
abundant.  Chief  witnesses  go  back  as  far  as  Tertullian. 
Not  often  quoted  in  the  2nd  century,  but  in  Syriac,  Lat- 
in and  Muratori  Canon,  also  evidence  from  the  number 
of  Paul's  epistles.  The  Tiibingeu  school  are  the  only 
objectors.  Schrader,  and  especially  Baur,  apply  to  the 
epistles  of  Paul  in  general  the  two  fundamental  canons 
of  historical  criticism  :  1.  The  doctrine  of  Christ's  divin- 
ity, not  taught  by  Christ  or  Apostles,  hence  any  book 
that  makes  Christ  divine  belongs  to  later  period.  2.  All 
books  not  presenting  a  division  between  Paul  and  Jeru- 
salem Apostles  are  not  genuine.  The  primitive  church 
was  essentially  Jewish,  and  the  twelve  Apostles  all  of  this 
type.  Paul  in  advocating  the  universal  character  of  the 
church  creates  a  split.  The  two  opposing  tendencies 
co-existed  in  the  church.  Those  books  are  genuine  which 
admit  this  appearance  of  difference.  To  retain  authority 
in  the  church,  books  were  ascribed  to  the  Apostles.  Thus 
Acts  was  written.  Three  classes  of  books  result  from 
the  application  of  these  canons.  1.  Gal.,  Cor.  and  Rom- 
ans are  genuine.  2.  Ephesians,  Colossians,  Philippians, 
Philemon  and  Thess.  are  Pauline,  but  belong  to  a  later 
date.  3.  The  Pastoral  Epistles  are  evidently  spurious. 
Baur  styles  the  first  class  bfjioXoyoupiEva.  the  second  class 
di^TcAeyojusva,  and  the  Pastorals  belong  to  the  pcoda.  Some 
admit  1  Thess.,  Eph.,  and  Philemon,  but  they  are  re- 
jected because  they  do  not  contain  the  controversy. 
Argument  against  1  Thess.  is  (1)  that  it  contains  nothing 
of  doctrinal  importance,  therefore  not  genuine.  But  Paul 
did  not  need  to  write  only  argument  and  doctrine.  The 
epistle  was  written  to  meet  the  difliculties  in  the  church. 
(2)  A  mere  spinning  out  of  Acts  17,  with  additions  from 
1  Cor.  which  treats  of  the  resurrection.  The  constant 
repetition  of  the  phrase  "  ye  know  "  ia  noticeable. 
But  Paul  had  recently  left  them  and  was  in  close  sym- 
pathy with  them.     Correspondence  is    natural  to  narra- 


109 

tives  of  the  same  events.  Therefore  the  similarity  to 
Luke's  history  confirms  rather  than  invaliflates  its  gen- 
uineness, (3)  Unpauline  in  style.  There  is  an  absence 
of  his  particular  expressions,  special  phrases  and  second 
clauses.  Answer  (a)  The  inconsistency  of  the  objectors, 
any  resemblance  proves  an  imitation,  any  difference  an 
unsuccessful  forgery ;  (b)  no  greater  difference  from 
Paul's  acknowledged  epistles,  than  is  common  to  all 
acknowledged  books.  Every  acknowledged  epistle  has 
peculiarities  found  in  no  other.  The  difference  of  style 
further  accounted  for  by  the  absence  of  the  polemic  ele- 
ment ;  tliere  was  no  need  for  polemic  style  as  in  other 
letters.  His  opponents  were  Jews  not  Jewish  Christians, 
hence  doctrine  of  justification  is  not  so  prominent  as 
Advent.  Controversy  with  Jews  had  not  yet  reached  \ 
Europe— never  much  in  Macedonia.  They  continued  per- 
secutors of  Paul  throughout,  and  he  holds  Jewish  Chris- 
tians in  Judea  as  examples.  They  say  Saul  would  not  hold 
them  examples  for  anything.  (4)  He  says  things  that  are 
untrue  of  a  church  so  recently  founded.  This  argument 
answered  above.  (5)  Chapter  4:  14-18,  concerning  the 
Second  Advent.  This  was  the  motive  of  the  whole  epistle. 
Objected  (a)  that  his  manner  of  presenting  this  topic  is 
unlike  his  manner  of  presenting  it  elsewhere.  He  does 
not  go  into  detail.  It  is  treated  in  the  Jewish  Rabbinical 
style,  pomp,  etc.,  the  same  writer  could  not  have  written 
this  and  1  Cor.  15.  This  description  is  natural  in  the  early 
history  of  the  church.  The  subject  of  the  resurrection 
was  matter  of  the  earliest  preaching,  hence  the  first  diffi- 
culties arose  about  it,  and  was  the  subject  of  the  earliest 
letters.  Difficulty  had  been  settled  once  and  needed  not 
to  be  referred  to  again.  Paley  says  that  later  writers 
would  not  speak  of  Paul  as  expecting  immediate  Advent 
after  these  expectations  have  been  proved  unfounded. 

Analysis  of  the   First  Epistle. 
[Ellicott's  Analysis.] 
Objects  of  thb  Epistles  : 
I.  To  console : 

(1.)  In   reference  to  certain    external    trials   and 
afflictions,  (ch.  2  :  14,  sq.) 


110 

(2.)  In  reference  to  internal  trials  arising  from 
anxieties  as  to  the  state  of  their  departed  friends, 
(ch.  4,  sq.) 

11.  To  admonish  : 

(1.)  With  reference  to  grave  moral  principles,  (ch. 

4  :   1  sq.) 
(2.)  With  reference  to  Christian  watchfulness,  (ch. 

5:  1  sq.) 
(3.)  With    reference  to  various    practical    duties, 

(ch.  5  :  14  sq.) 

Analysis. 

1.  1 :  1.  Apostolic  Address  and  Salutation. 

2.  1 :  2-10.  We  thank  God  for  your  spiritual  progress. 

The  manner  in  which  we  preached  and  ye  heard 
is  now  well  known  to  all  men. 

3.  II :  1-12.  Our   entrance  was  not  empty  ;  we   neither 

beguiled  you  nor  were  burdensome,  but  toiled 
bravely  and  encouraged  you  both  by  actions  and 
words. 

4.  II :  13-16.  We  thank  God  that  ye  received  our  preach- 

ing. Ye  suffered  from  your  own  people  as  we 
did  from  the  Jews. 

5.  II :  17-20.  I  endeavored  to  see  you  but  was  hindered 

by  Satan.     Ye  truly  are  our  crown  and  glory. 

6.  Ill:  1-5.  As  we  could  not  forbear  any  longer,  we  sent 

Timothy  to  reassure  you  in  your  affliction. 

7.  Ill  :  6-18.  When  he  came   to  us  and  reported  your 

faith,  we  were  greatly  comforted,  and  are  deeply 
thankful. 

8.  IV :  1-8.  Abound    ye    according    to   my  commands. 

God's  will  is  your  sanctification,  wherefore  be 
chaste  and  continent. 

9.  IV:  9-12.  On   brotherly  love  I  need   say  nothing,  I 

beseech  you  to  be  quiet,  industrious  and  orderly. 

10.  IV  :  13-18.  Do  not  grieve  for  those  that  sleep.     We 

shall  not  anticipate  them,  but  at  the  last  trump 
they  will  be  raised,  and  we  translated. 

11.  V  :  1-11.  Ye  know  that  the  day  of  the  Lord  cometh 

suddenly.  Be  watchful  and  prepared,  for  God 
has  not  appointed  us  for  wrath  but  salvation. 


Ill 

12,  V:   12-24.   Reverence  your  spiritual  rulers;  be  peace- 

ful and  forbearing  and  thankful.  Quench  not 
the  Spirit,  and  ma}'  God  sanctify  and  preserve 
you. 

13.  V  :  25-27.  Pray  for   us.     Salute  the    brethren    and 

cause  this  epistle  to  be  read  before   the  church. 
U.  V:  28.  Benediction. 

The  development  of  New  Testament  doctrine  re- 
verses the  order  of  systematic  theology. 

SECOND  THESSALONIANS. 

Time  and  place.  Soon  after  the  first  epistle,  and  at 
Corinth.  1.  The  same  subject,  viz.,  the  Advent,  is  still 
prominent  in  the  church.  2.  Same  practical  dangers,  idle-  ^ 
ness,  etc.  3.  Same  relations  to  the  world,  persecution. 
4.  Same  companions  with  Paul,  Silas  and  Timothy.  There 
is  time  enough  for  the  effect  of  the  first  letter  and  develop- 
ment of  thedifliculty.  Paul's  request  for  prayer  (3,  2,)  may 
refer,  to  opposition  in  Corinth.  (Acts  18.)  Hence  about 
the  spring  of  54  A.  D.  Grotius  says  that  the  second  was 
written  first  because  of  3  :  17,  and  because  the  "man  of 
sin  "  refers  to  Caligula,  who  died  41  A.  I).  Before  Paul 
went  there.  So  Ewald  and  Davidson.  Hilgenfeld  and 
Hare  identify  Nero  with  the  man  of  sin,  (69  A.  D.) 
But  this  is  too  late  for  Paul's  life.  "  The  mystery  of 
iniquity  must  refer  to  gnosticism,  hence  the  book  must 
be  later.  The  climactic  arrangement  of  persecution 
stronger  in  2nd  Thessalonians.  Hence  martyrdom  must 
have  been  established.  Hilgenfeld  puts  it  in  Trajan's 
day,  but  Ewald  and  Davidson  with  Grotius  put  2nd 
Thessalonians  earlier.  (Ch.  2:  15.)  "  Whether  by  word 
or  our  epistle"  proves  the  correct  order,  also  the  inter- 
nal connection  reference  being  to  previous  epistle.  The 
subscription  in  A.  V.  is  erroneous. 

Historical  information.  (1.)  The  persecutions  in 
Tliessalonica  were  more  than  mere  temporary  outbursts 
of  excitement.  From  Acts  we  might  judge  that  persecu- 
tion was  directed  against  Paul  personally,  but  the  im- 
port of  the  epistles  gives  a  different  conception.  The 
church  was  the  object  of  hatred  to  the  Jews.  (2.)  Their 
trials  did  not  break  down  their  endurance.     This  illus- 


112 

trates  the  rapid  growth  of  Christianity  in  actual  wants 
of  the  people.  (3.)  Anxiety  in  previous  letter  in  regard 
to  death  seems  to  be  al]a3'ed  when  the  second  was  writ- 
ten. Those  alive  at  the  coming  of  Christ  know  better 
than  those  dying  in  the  future.  But  the  teaching  of  the 
1st  epistle  as  to  the  Advent,  that  it  should  be  sudden 
perhaps  near,  and  required  watchfulness,  was  perverted, 
and  produced  the  usual  bad  effects.  Here,  too,  climactic 
arrangement.  In  the  first  idleness,  in  the  second  breach 
of  authority.  (3:  6-15.)  The  inference  from  the  second 
chapter  is  that  false  teachers  had  come  in  and  tried  to  gain 
Paul's  authority  by  forging  letters,  (vs.  2,  3.)  "Neither 
by  spirit  "  i.  e.,  tklse  interpretation  of  O.  T.  prophecy, 
or  rather  false  prophets,  "  nor  by  word,"  i.  e.,  discourses 
of  Christ  delivered  by  oral  reports  from  the  Apostles. 
"  Nor  by  letter  as  from  us,"  i.  e.,  misinterpretations  of 
former  letter  or  forgeries.  Their  efforts  gave  occasion 
to  this  second  letter. 

Canonical/  and  Authenticity.  External  evidence  undoubt- 
ed. Polycarp  writing  to  Justin  Martyr  uses  the  expres- 
sion "  man  of  sin."  There  are  direct  quotations  in  Ter- 
tullian  and  Clement  of  Alexandria,  arguments  on  internal 
grounds  are  more  formidable  than  those  against  Ist  epis- 
tle. It  is  more  attacked  than  the  Ist.  The  Tiibingen 
school,  Schmidt,  Kern  and  Baur  reject  it.  De  Wette  did, 
but  has  changed  his  opinion.  Argument  1.  It  is  objected 
that  the  2nd  contradicts  the  1st  epistle  in  regard  to  its 
teachings  on  the  Advent;  alleged  that  Ist  epistle  takes 
for  granted  that  the  Advent  would  be  in  writer's  own  day. 
"  We  which  are  alive,"  (1  Thess.  4:  17.)  The  2nd  writ- 
ten with  express  object  of  correcting  this  mistake  and 
allaying  excitement.  Baur  declares  this  is  a  contradic- 
tion of  1  Cor.  15  :  52.  We  shall  not  all  die,  but  we  shall 
all  be  changed,  which  he  claims  to  mean,  the  men  of 
Paul's  generation  should  not  pass  away  till  Christ  came. 
Answer  1.  There  is  no  positive  statement  that  it  would 
be  soon — only  inferential.  The  1st  person  plural  does 
not  imply  this,  but  includes  the  whole  church.  Paul  does 
not  confine  it  to  his  own  day  when  he  says  "  we  shall  all 
be  changed."  The  most  that  can  be  said  is  that  the 
Apostle  shared  in  what  according  to  many  was  the  com- 


113 

mon  belief  of  the  early  elinrcli,  viz.,  that  Christ  should 
come  soon.  lie  made  no  definite  statement.  lie  may 
have  expected  a  speedy  fnlfiHrnent  and  told  them  "to 
watch  and  l»e  ready."  He  left  the  church  in  an  attitude 
of  k)okingfor  (/hrist's  cotniiiif.  Naturally  they  e.\'[)ected 
Iliin  soon.  The  mode  of  His  de|)arture  and  the  promises 
that  He  made  also  produced  this  expectation.  If  so  Paul 
ex[)ected  the  events,  of  chapter  two  in  his  own  time.  The 
conception  of  the  inunediate  coming  quite  |)ossibIe  to 
those  of  that  cjeneration.  These  were  times  of  supernatu- 
ral proujress.  Nothing  unreasonable  according  to  present 
growth  of  the  church.  Paul  already  looking  to  Rome. 
In  2nd  Thess.  lie  declares  that  the  Advent  is  not  immedi- 
ate, but  he  does  not  say  that  it  is  not  to  be  soon.  There 
were  to  be  certain  signs,  and  Paul  may  not  have  thoiiglit 
that  it  required  so  much  time  for  the  fulfillment  of  his 
prophecies.  Besides  it  is  characteristic  of  a  pro[)])et  to 
take  little  note  of  time.  A  prophet  does  not  always  un- 
derstand his  own  profjhecy.  2.  On  the  other  hand  Paul 
may  not  have  shared  this  expectation.  The  "  we"  has 
reference  to  all  who  shall  pai'ticipate  in  the  event,  the 
exhortation  to  watch  always  applicable.  The  epistle  to 
Romans  shows  that  Paul  knew  that  great  national  move- 
ments must  su|)ervene.  The  argument  in  2  Thess.  ac- 
cords with  Romans  that  before  the  end  should  come  all 
Israel  should  be  saved.  He  must  have  thought  chansfes 
should  be  so  \ery  rai)id  as  to  be  compressed  into  a  gen- 
eration. Van  Oosterzee  holds  that  there  were  changes 
in  Paul's  private  opinion,  that  in  the  1st  letter  he  ex|)ected 
immediate  advent,  but  iinds  show  of  progress,  and  then 
in  the  2nd  epistle  his  mind  is  changed.  This  is  entirely 
consistent  with  his  inspiration.  2nd  objection.  Unpau- 
line  method  of  treatment.  This  needs  no  answer.  3rd 
objection.  The  doctrine  of  antichrist  is  said  to  be  un- 
pauline.  It  belongs  to  the  Apocalypse.  It  is  the  only 
passage  in  Paul's  epistles  where  it  is  found.  It  is  said 
to  be  written  after  the  Montanist  heresy.  This  is  a  cu- 
rious fact  and  accords  with  John's  usage  in  Revelation. 
It  should  occur  now  as  he  refers  to  Eschatology,  "  once 
and  for  all,"  2  Thess.  2:  1-12  is  a  clear  passage  concern- 
ing "  nian  of  sin,"  "  mystery  of  inicpiity,"  "  Antichrist." 
Something  is  hindering,  a  principle  is  at  work. 


114 

4.  Scheckenburger  makes  the  "  man  of  sin"  to  be 
Judaism,  and  its  rejection  Christianity.  Ans. :  No  fuoof 
of  unpanline  cliaracter  from  its  appearing  only  once,  all 
these  predictions  have  an  element  of  uncertainty  about 
them,  and  the  whole  idea  refers  to  the  conflict  of  Messiah 
and  Satan. 

5.  Kern  and  Ililgenfeld  say  that  it  is  based  on  Reve- 
lation, and  imi)ossible  before  Revelation. 

6.  Dollinger  and  Kenan  sa}'  the  "  nuin  of  sin"  is  a 
heathen  trait.  The  man  of  sin  is  Nero,  and  the  hinderer 
is  Clandins.  Hence  both  ai-e  written  to  bring  the  doc- 
trine of  the  Advent  to  the  mind  of  the  church.  The 
autogra|)h  of  the  Apostle  is  said  to  be  a  sign  of  later  ori- 
gin of  the  epistle  but  the  ])resence  of  false  jtroidiets 
necessitated  it.  Chap.  1  is  an  inti-oduction,  contains  cora- 
mendat'n)n  and  encouragement  to  steadfastness;  cliap.  2: 
1-12,  didactic,  contains  the  doctrines  of  the  Advent  and 
Antichrist.  It  contains  a  clear  statement  concerning 
future  sin,  and  of  the  mystei-y  of  iniquity.  The  man  of 
sin,  already  working,  yet  to  be  more  fully  revealed.  This 
hindrance  is  expressed  by  the  neuter  and  masculine  as  a 
thing  or  a  person.  When  it  is  removed,  then  Christ  will 
come.  Three  interpretations  are  given  of  this.  1.  Prjie- 
rerist  Inter[)retation.  This  refers  the  prophecy  entirely 
to  the  past,  say  Paul's  time,  and  seeks  out  some  Roman 
emperor,  e.  g.,  Nero  or  Caligula.  The  olijection  to  this  is, 
the  exegesis  of  the  passage  declares  that  th.e  develop- 
ment of  Antichrist  is  from  within  the  church.  It  is 
apostasy,  not  persecution.  2nd  Interj)retatiou,  the 
Futurists.  This  held  by  the  great  mass  of  Reformed 
theologian?.  They  refer  it  to  the  apostasy  of  the  Pope 
of  Rome.  The  chief  motive  for  this  view  is  the  ex- 
actness with  which  the  passage  answers  the  Romish  as- 
sumption. The  terms  ai-e  rennirkably  fulfilled  in  the 
Romish  church.  DilHculties  of  this  view.  When  Paul 
writes,  this  iniquity  is  already  working  and  is  to  continue. 
Evidently  it  must  mean  some  jirinciple  which  began  in 
Paul's  time  and  continues  to  the  end.  3rd.  Intermediate 
view,  (held  by  Iloffnian,  Baunigarten  and  Light  foot.) 
Paul  had  in  his  mind  his  chief  enemies,  the  Jews,  miuI  the 
chief  restraint  was  the  Roman   empire,  which  protected 


115 

the  churcli.  This  is  taken  in  a  typical  sense,  as  an  ex- 
ample ot  the  future.  The  opposition  of  his  day  but  a 
specimen  (Daiiiel  10:20.)  'llns  generic  view  interprets 
Atiticlirist  as  including  all  forms  of  error  and  apostasy 
in  the  history  of  the  church,  jteriiing  its  piii'ify.  The 
opposing  power  is  the  sum  of  all  Christian  and  providen- 
tial influences.  By  this,  a|)i»lications  of  specilic  passai^es 
are  explained,  for  it  was  already  at  work  in  Paul's  day. 
Certain  times  and  instances  taken  as  sample  of  the  whole 
period.     The  generic  view  is  the  best. 

Analysis  of  the  Second  Epistle. 
[Ellicott's  Analysis.] 
Objects  of  the  Etistle  : 

I.  Corrective  instruction  : 

(a)  Second  Advent  not  close  at  hand. 

(b)  Certain    events   must  lirst  arise    and    be    de- 
veloped. 

II.  Consolation  under  affliction  (ch.  1  :  4,  sq.) 

III.  Exhortation  to  order,  (ch.  3:  6,)  industry,  (ch.  3: 
8,  sq.)  and  quietness,  (cli.  3  :  12.) 

Analysis. 

1.  I:  1-2.  Apostolic  address  and  salutation. 

2.  I:  3-12.    We  thank  God  for  your  faith   and  patience, 

He  will  recomi)ense  you  and  avenge  you.  May 
lie  count  you  worth}'  of  His  calling. 

3.  II:  1-12.  13e   not  disquieted   concerning  the  Lord's 

coming.  The  man  of  sin,  as  ye  know,  must  first 
be  revealed;  and  then  shall  be  destroyed  by  the 
Lord. 

4.  II:  13-17.   We  ought  to    thank   God    that    he    hath 

chosen  and  called  you.  Hold  what  we  delivered 
unto  you.     And  may  God  stablish  you. 

5.  Ill:  1-5.   Finally,  pray  for  the  advance  of  the  Lord's 

word,  and  for  ns.  He  will  stablish  you  ;  and 
may  lie  guide  your  hearts. 

6.  Ill:  6-16.  Avoid  all  disorderly  brethren  and  imitate 

us.  "We  charge  such  to  labor,  and  bid  you 
mark  them  that  disobey.  The  Lord  give  yoa 
peace. 

7.  Ill:  17,18.  Autograph  salutatiou  and  benediction. 


116 

More  doctrinal  thnn  previous  epistle.  Special  com- 
mentaries :  Lilly,  EHicott,  Jowett,  articles  in  Smith's 
Dictionary,  Prof.  Liij;hlfoot. 

Paul's  first  residence  and  ministry  in  Corinth,  Acts 
18:  18.  Duration:  18  months.  Time:  fall  of  52. 
Paul's  visit  to  Corinth  marked  a  crisis  in  his  ministry. 
The  situation  of  the  city,  and  its  relation  to  the  com- 
merce of  the  Mediterranean,  made  it  an  important 
centre  for  the  spread  of  the  Gospel.  It  stood  on  the 
isthmus  connecting  the  Peloponnesus  with  the  mainland. 
It  was  called  the  "  city  of  the  two  seas,"  its  two  [jorts, 
Cenclirea  on  the  east,  and  Lechaeum  on  the  west,  being 
places  of  transshij)ment  for  the  traders  of  the  Levant, 
This  was  preferred  to  the  passage  around  Cape  Malea, 
which  was  like  Cape  Horn  in  danger.  The  country  was 
rocky  and  barren.  Its  strong  military  position  made  it 
the  key  of  the  Peloponnesus.  Ancient  Corinth,  the 
cajiital  of  the  Achaian  League,  was  not  the  scene  of 
Paul's  labors.  It  was  captured  by  Mummius  146  B.  C, 
the  inhabitants  slain,  and  the  city  burnt.  Lay  desolate 
for  a  century,  when  Jtilius  Csesar  sent  a  colony  rhere  in 
41  B.  C,  who  rebuilt  it.  In  the  century  which  elapsed 
between  this  and  the  Apostle's  visit,  the  city  regained  its 
ancient  splendor,  in  wealth,  art,  and  literature,  and 
acquired  a  new  importance  as  the  metropolis  of  the 
Roman  province  of  Achaia.  It  was  not  a  military  i)ost; 
hence  Paul  had  no  contact  here  with  military  authorit}-. 
In  Paul's  time  the  population  comprised  Greeks,  Pomans 
and  Jews.  The  heterogeneous  character,  mental  activ- 
ity, great  wealth,  luxurious  habits,  and  licentious  wor- 
ship of  its  inhabitants,  called  for  the  solution  of  ques- 
tions of  a  practical  bearing.  Tlie  grossest  immoralities 
were  practised  under  cover  of  religion  ;  viohitions  of  the 
seventh  commandment  were  regarded  with  indiiierence; 
and  even  incest  among  church  members  was  deemed 
excusable,  (1  Cor.  5  :  1.)  The  social  condition  of  the 
church  in  Corinth  as  contrasted  witli  that  of  the  churches 
in  Macedonia,  affords  an  explamition  of  the  difference  in 
the  epistles  to  these  respective  churches.  Paul  on  his 
arrival  associated  himself  with  Priscilla  and  Aquila, 
Jews  who  had  been  driven  from   Pome,  in   consequence 


117 

of  a  decree  of  Claiidina  commaTKling  all  Jews  to  depart 
from  the  city.  (Acta  18:  2.)  Were  Aqnilaand  Priscilla 
converted  or  not?  Two  opinions.  (1)  They  were  Chris- 
tians. Evidenced  by  tlieir  immediate  reception  of  Paul. 
Ans.  :  They  are  inclnded  under  the  decree  of  Clandins. 
Reply:  The  tnrhiilenee  of  the  Jews  against  the  Chris- 
tians occasioned  the  decree.  Tlie  Romans  did  not  dis- 
criminate between  Jews  and  Christians.  (2)  Meyer's  : 
(best)  they  were  not  converted  until  tiiey  met  Paul  at 
Corinth,  because  Aquila  is  called  a  Jew  without  modifi- 
cation. Suetonius,  referring  to  this  decree,  says  that  the 
Jews  were  continually  making  a  disturbance  Chresto 
imptdsore,  i.  e.,  according  to  some,  at  the  instance  of  a 
person  named  Chrestus,  now  unknown  ;  others,  that 
Chretsto  is  a  mistake  for  Christo,  (a  frequent  error,  Tert.,) 
his  Messiahship  being  a  constant  subject  of  dispute 
among  the  Jews,  with  whom  the  Christians  were  con- 
founded. This  decree  and  its  occasion  as  given  by 
Suetonius  imply  the  existence  of  a  Christian  church  in 
Rome  in  the  time  of  Claudius.  Aquila  and  Priscilla  are 
subsequently  mentioned  as  laboring  at  Ephesus,  (18  :  1, 
18,  26.)  and  Rome,  (Rom.  16:  3.)  They  were  tent-makers  ; 
therefore  Paul  "abode  with  them  and  wrought."  This 
is  the  tirst  mention  of  Paul's  manual  labor.  V.5.  Some 
say  that  the  arrival  of  Silas  and  Tiiuothy  made  a  change 
in  Paul's  preaching.  Otiiers  :  "pressed  in  spirit  "  indi- 
cated the  state  of  mind  in  which  they  found  Paul,  based 
on  imperfect  tense,  or  better,  with  the  amended  text, 
aup£;yjTo  t(o  Inyio.  Engrossed  with  doctrine.  Jewish 
interference  caused  change.  V.  6.  lie  left  them  and 
went  to  the  Gentiles.  Synagogue  abandoned,  and  ser- 
vices lield  in  house  of  Justus  adjoining.  Paul's  state  of 
mind,  vs.  5,  9,  10.  Reference  to  Paul's  state  of  mind  in 
the  Acts  and  epistles  are  of  great  interest,  as  coincident 
with  advances  in  teaching.  Special  vision,  v.  9.  Reason 
for  it :  1.  Paul  was  discouraged,  and  needed  the  encour- 
agement it  would  afford.  2.  The  hostility  of  tlie  Jews 
caused  this  distress.  3.  Fear  that  he  should  not  succeed 
in  establishing  a  churcii  in  Greece.  4.  His  cares,  as  set 
forth  in  the  coistles  to  Corinthians  (1  Cor.  2:  3)  and 
Thessalonians  (1  Thess.  3  :  10  ;  2  Thess.  2:  2,  3.)     Per- 


118 

haps  his  vow  also  was  connected  with  this  depression. 
Tliis  depression  is  exphiined  by  the  liistory  of  this  his 
second  jonrney.  lie  was  watching  the  deveU)pnient  of 
Cliristian  doctrine.  Had  been  driven  to  Corinth  by  per- 
secniion.  The  indications  were  that  Greece  had  no  i-e- 
ceptivity  for  the  Gospel  Both  Jews  and  Gentiles  had 
rejected  liim. 

Sahjeci  and  manner  of  Jiis  preaching.  Crucifixion  and 
resurrection  go  togetlier.  SoPaul's  dejection  drove  liim 
to  the  resurrection  and  second  coming  of  the  Lord  for 
conifoit,  (1  Thess.  4  and  5  chs.)  In  Acts  tlic  subject  of 
preaching  is  that  Jesus  is  the  Messiah,  (18  :  5  ;)  from  Cor. 
we  learn  that  he  taught  Cl)rist  and  him  crucitied.  (1  Cor, 
2:  1,  2.)  This  seems  an  advance  in  Paul's  doctrine  of  the 
atonement.  AVe  know  tliat  tlie  resurrection  also  was 
taught  at  Corinth,  (1  Cor.  15.)  The  preaching  of  the 
resurrection  implies  the  death  of  Christ.  Manner  of 
his  preaching,  not  with  enticing  words  of  man's  wisdom 
(1  Cor.  2:4.)  Due  to  conscious  weakness  and  growing 
trust  in  Christ.  Many,  with  Neander,  refer  this  sim- 
plicity of  manner  to  the  ill-snccess  of  his  more  philo- 
sophical and  intellectual  attempt  at  Athens.  This 
wrong,  for  the  exce|)tional  character  of  his  preaching  at 
Athens  was  due  to  the  exceptional  character  of  his  audi- 
ence. Moreover  it  is  an  evidence  of  Paul's  wisdom  in 
adapting  style  to  audience,  as  here,  and  presents  the  les- 
son that "  not  many  wise,  etc.,  are  calle(h"    (1  Cor.  1:26.) 

Ilisroin,v.  18.  Best  understood  as  outward  expres- 
sion of  his  inward  depression,  and  as  a  token  of  self-abne- 
gation and  reliance  on  Christ.  Some  say  Aquihi  was 
the  subject  of  the  vow.  Grounds  (1)  nearest  to  the  par- 
ticiple, (2)  transposition  of  names.  Ans. :  Unnecessary 
granuTiaticall}',  names  have  same  order  elsewhere.  Objec- 
tions :  (1)  Paul  says  man  to  have  loug  hair  is  shame.  Ans.  : 
From  Num.  6  we  learn  longhair  was  in  one  who  had  vowed. 
A  token  of  humility  or  shame,  hence  expresses  sincei'ity 
which  secured  blessings.  (2)  Contrary  to  Paul's  teaching 
freedom  from  the  law.  Ans.  :  This  founded  on  assump- 
tion that  it  was  Nazaritic  vow,  oa  which  it  is  further 
urged  (3)  that  language  required  this  vow  to  be  absolved 
iu  temple  and  by  a  priest,     Ans.  I'aul  did  not  become  a 


119 

Nazarite.  He  adopts  certain  principles  of  a  religious 
vow  with  which  all  Jews  were  familiar.  This  the  only 
view  consistent  with  the  facts  of  history.  Some  say,  with 
Calvin,  made  to  conciliate  Jews.  Neander,  that  it  was  a 
vow  to  he  completely  fiiHilled  in  Jerusalem  as  a  pnhlic 
acknowledgment  of  his  gratitude.  This  inltillment  hegan 
with  his  departure  from  Corinth,  lie  also  pnt  the  dis- 
pute with  Peter  at  Antioch  in  this  connection,  soon  after 
Paul's  arrival  at  Jerusalem.  Others  say  vow  taken  on 
account  of  persecution  and  his  religious  life;  some  to 
please  Judaizers.  Afrer  receiving  his  vision,  and  leaving 
the  city  on  account  of  the  persecution  stirred  up  hy  his 
great  success,  Paul's  mind  is  changed.  Being  comforted, 
he  la3's  aside  his  vow. 

Success  of  Gospel  in  Corinth  was  great,  (1  Cor.  1  :  27)  ^ 
and  attended  hy  signs,  wonders  and  mighty  deeds  (2  Cor. 
12  :  12.)  Some  came  into  the  church  directly  from  their 
idols,  as  appears  from  their  idolatrous  practices,  an:l  (1 
Cor.  6  :  11)  among  the  converts  was  Crispus,  chief  ruler 
of  synagogue  ;  some  say  Sosthenes  also,  making  him  the 
same  as  the  one  mentioned  in  the  epistle  (1  Cor.  1:1);  also 
Gains  and  Stephanas  (1  Cor.  1  :  14-16.)  This  success  ex- 
cited Jewish  opposition,  for  an  outhreak  of  which  the 
accession  of  Gallio  to  the  ofiicc  of  proconsul  furnished 
an  occasion,  as  they  imagined  he  would  seek  to  conciliate 
them  and  gain  favor.  Question  as  to  the  date  of  the 
occurrence,' whether  it  wiis  18  months  after  Paul's  arri- 
val, (v.  11)  or  hefore  their  e.\'[)iration.  Latter  view  is 
best,  (v.  18.)  Ohmy/e.  Teaching  a  religion  contrary  to 
the  law.  What  law?  Some  say  (best)  Mosaic,  because  Gal- 
lio refused  to  take  cognizance  of  the  charge,  (14,  15); 
otherssay  Roman,  because  Ronniu  law  forl)ade  all  religions 
unlicensed  by  the  state.  The  scene  before  the  tribunal 
was  clniracteristic  of  the  public  assemblies  of  the  age. 
The  Jews  were  turbulent,  and  would  not  yield  until 
driven  out  of  court.  This  obstinacy  so  provoked  the 
Greeks  (v.  17)  that  they  seized  the  leader  Sosthenes  and 
beat.  Question  as  to  text  of  v.  17.  Best  critics  expunge 
01  'A'//-^'v2c ;  then  the  reading  is  indefinite  "  the//  all,"  refer- 
ing  to  (1)  all  the  Greeks,  (2)  all  the  Jews,  (3)  some  say 
pagan  witnesses  against  the  Jews,  (4)  true  view,  iudefi- 


120 

nite,  admittiiifij  both  terms,  but  referring  particularly  to 
tlie  Greek's  who  were  indignant  at  the  Jews'  treatment  of 
Paul.  GaWo ;  original  name  was  Annteus  Ilovatus, 
brother  of  Seneca,  the  philosoplier.  His  name  Gallio 
was  due  to  his  adoption  into  the  family  of  Junius  Gallio, 
the  rhetorician.  "  lie  cared  for  none  of  these  things." 
Some  say  he  was  indifferent  as  to  the  great  questions  of 
the  time.  Some,  that  he  was  a  type  of  indifference  to 
religious  questions.  This  is  not  a  just  inference  from 
the  narrative.  There  is  nothing  to  show  that  he  was 
more  than  ordinarily  indifferent  to  personal  religion. 
His  known  character  for  integrity  and  mildness  contra- 
dicts this  assumption.  Seneca  says  of  his  brother: 
nemo  enim  mnrtalium  imi  tarn  diikis  est.  qiiam  hie  omnibits." 
He  merely  did  not  care  for  Jewish  religious  usages.  This 
case  illustrates  the  protection  given  Christianity  by  Koman 
government,  which  looked  upon  Christians  as  a  sect  of 
the  Jews.  All  questions  of  difference  were  to  be  settled 
among  themselves.  This  decision  would  be  a  precedent 
in  similar  cases  in  other  ju'oviuces,  and  is  therelbre  im- 
poi'tant.  It  is  also  remarkable  as  the  first  instance  in 
which  persecution  did  not  affect  Paul'n  movements.  He 
did  not  have  to  urge  his  own  defence,  and  continued  iu 
Corinth  until  he  felt  that  his  work  there  was  for  the  time 
completed.  The  church  at  Corintii  became  the  metro- 
politan church  of  Greece,  making  with  those  at  Philippi, 
Thessalonica  and  Berea  four  great  centers  established 
during  the  second  journey.  These  were  the  last  churches 
founded  by  Paul,  unless  those  in  Crete  are  to  be  added 
to  the  number  so  founded.  Hereafter  he  visits  those 
already  founded,  either  by  himself  or  others. 

V.  18.  Paul  now  returns  to  Jerusalem  and  Antioch  to 
keep  up  the  unity  of  the  church.  Sailed  from  Cenchrea 
with  Aquila  and  Priscilla  in  company.  These  mentioned 
because  subsequently  in  Ephesus  they  were  the  teachers 
of  Apollos.  Stopped  at  Ephesus,  but  for  a  short  lime 
only,  then  pressed  forward  in  his  journey  answering  their 
solicitations  for  liis  presence  by  a  promise  to  return. 
Hitherto  (16  :  6,  7)  he  had  been  forbidden  by  the  Spirit 
from  entering  Asia,  (Ephesus,)  now  feels  this  prohibition 
ig  removed.     Ques.  :  Did  Paul  at  this  time  visit  Jerusa- 


121 

leni  ?  Critical  text  in  verse  21  omits  the  whole  clause 
relatiiis^  to  Jeriisaleiii.  Common  view;  fomi'led  (1)  on 
the  force  of  the  word??  ava,9«c  iU'd  'Aara^q  sajs  he  went  np 
to  Jerusalem  from  Ciiesarea,  and  thence  to  Antioch. 
These  words  cainiot  (as  some  say)  refer  to  debarkatii^i. 
This  view  is  also  in  accoi'dance  with  Luke's  usaije.  (2) 
Ca^sarea  was  the  port  for  Jernsalem,  and  ont  of  the  way 
of  the  conrse  to  Antioch.  His  short  stay  in  Jerusalem 
was  due  to  the  fact  that  he  had  little  to  tell  and  nothing 
to  detain  liim.  As  to  the  feast  mentioned  in  v.  21  (T. 
K.)  was  it  Passover  or  Pentecost  ?  Some  say  it  could  not 
be  Passover,  because  that  occurred  too  early  for  naviga- 
tion. But  we  know  the  Jews  annually  went  up  to  the 
feast  of  the  Passover.  Wieseler  here  introduces  the  visit 
mentioned  in  Gal.-(2:  1)  and  recrards  the  feast  as  that  of 
Pentecost.  Meander  makes  this  visit  the  cause  of  Peters 
gointj  to  Antioch,  and  the  re[)ort  of  Paul's  success  the 
occasion  for  the  revival  of  the  Judaizing  spirit.  Paul 
returns  to  Antioch  whence,  he  shorti}'  after  set  out  upon 
his  third  missionary  journey. 

TnruD  Missionary  JouRNKY.  Acts  18  :  22;  21:  32.) 
A.  D.  54  or  55-58.  On  account  of  Luke,8  historical  de- 
sign the  dividing  points  of  the  narrative  ai'e  obscure. 
He  makes  the  Ajiostle  pass  quickly  from  Corinth  to 
E|)hesus,  with  the  simple  statenient  that  Paul  went  over 
all  the  country  of  Galatia  and  Phrygia  in  order,  strength- 
ening all  the  disciples  (v.  23.)  Apollos  is  here  mentioned 
with  reference  either  to  the  |.»revious  passage  concerning 
Corinth,  or  the  following  about  Ephesus.  The  {jersonal 
gifts  contrast  strongly  with  those  of  Paul.  He  was  defi- 
cient in  the  knowledge  of  Christ,  but  having  received 
instruction  from  Aquila  and  Prescilla  heat  their  recom- 
mendation went  to  Corinth  as  the  successor  of  Paul. 
His  work  was  to  convince  the  Jews  b}' arguments  drawn 
from  O.  T.  Did  not  extend  the  Churcli  but  watered 
what  Paul  [danted.  Did  not  present  himself  as  a  disciple 
of  Paul  yet  in  conjunction  with  indei)endence  and 
strength  of  character  he  displayed  gi-eat  docility. 

Ephesus.  (Chap.  19,)  A.  D.  54-57.  It  was^the  capi- 
tal of  Paul's  Eastern  labors  as  Corinth  was  the  capital  or 
centre  of  his  Western.     It  lay  half-way  between  Jerusa- 


122 

lem  and  Corinth,  and  tluis  forms  a  meetins:  place  for 
Greeks  and  Borliorians.  It  was  the  commercial  mont  of 
Asia  Minor,  vest  of  Tarsus,  and  was  connected  by  two 
great  roads  with  the  table  lands  (v.  1,  "  upper  coasts'' 
of  Galatia  and  Phrygia.  Under  the  Roman  domination 
it  was  the  greatest  city  of  Asia  Minor.  Now  it  exists 
only  in  ruins  near  tlie  Turkish  village  Ayasaluk.  Its 
geographical  relation  with  the  east  and  west  corresponded 
with  its  mediating  position  in  N.  T.  liistory.  The  church 
now  established  in  Jerusalem  and  Greece  was  here  uni- 
fied. It  was  also  the  meeting  place  between  Greek  and 
barbarian  civilization  and  the  religion  of  tlie  true  God. 
Here  too  eastern  philosopnical  ideas  were  lirst  brought 
into  contact  with  Christianity.  In  the  developmet  of  the 
constitution  of  the  church  the  controversy  between  Paul 
and  the  Judaizers  had  ended  in  the  triumph  of  Pauline 
views.  A  new  movement  therefore  starts  from  Ephesus, 
viz.  :  to  unify  the  various  forms  of  the  faith,  then  held 
in  the  church.  Hence  it  became  tlie  residence  in  turn 
of  the  chief  Apostles.  Paul  labors  here  at  this  time  for 
3  3'ears.  Peter  addresses  his  epistles  among  others  to 
Christians  in  Asia,  i.  e.,  western  port  of  Asia  Minor. 
Jolin  afterwards  settled  in  this  region  and  delivered  the 
chureli  over  to  its  ordinary  ofiicers. 

Points  of  interest  in  Paul'sstayat  Ephesus:  preached 
for  three  months  in  the  synagogue.  On  account  of  op- 
position, he  withdrew  with  his  disciples  from  the  syna- 
gogue to  the  school  of  Tyrannus,  probably  a  Greek 
rhetorician.  Great  work  done,  much  oi)position  en- 
countered. (1  Cor.  16:  8,  9.)  The  churches  of  Asia 
mentioned  in  Apocalypse  the  result  of  the  moven)ent. 
Stress  is  to  be  laid  on  the  miraculous  element  in  the 
Ephesian  ministry,  because  Ephesus  was  at  that  time 
overrun  with  magicians.  Hence  need  for  a  contrast  of 
real  miracles  witJi  false.  In  v.  10  Luke  does  not  men- 
tion the  preaching  of  the  Gospel  at  Corinth  and  else- 
where, because  his  statement  is  introductory  to  mention 
of  the  miracles  wrought  by  Paul  at  Ephesus.  Cf.  the 
effects  of  handkercliiefs  and  aprons  taken  from  Paul's 
body  with  that  of  the  sliadow  of  Peter  at  Jerusalem. 
Paul's  wonder-working  success  led  the  magicians  to  seek 


123 

like  success  in  castincj  out  (lemons  in  the  name  of  Jesus 
(vs.  13,  14.)  Such  Jin  attemi)t  on  the  [tart  of  the  seven 
sons  of  Sceva  resulted  so  as  to  make  a  deep  impression 
on  tlie  muhitude  and  njreatly  magnify  the  name  of  tiie 
Lord  Jesus.  Exorcists  brouirht  their  books,  charms, 
and  amulets,  to  Paul,  and  burned  them  publicly,  ihe 
price  of  wliich  50,000  pieces  of  silver,  |7,000  or  $8,000. 
Great  benetit  resulted  to  the  church.  Althougli  Paul 
seems  to  have  been  driven  from  E[)hosus,  it  aj)pears  from 
V.  21,  he  had  formed  the  pui'pose  to  de[)art.  In  this 
verse  Luke  gives  the  first  intimation  that  Paul  looked 
forward  to  a  visit  to  Home.  Just  when  Paul  felt  that 
the  work  in  east  was  a  success,  occurred  the  uproar,  in- 
cited by  Demetrius,  (v.  24  ff.)  As  at  Philipi»i,  so  here, 
love  of  gain  was  the  motive  for  the  persecution  of  Chris- 
tians l)y  their  enemies.  The  trade  of  making  shrines  of 
Diana  wa^interfered  with.  Diana  was  totally  distinct  from 
the  Greek  and  Roman  goddess  of  that  name,  ditt'ering 
much  in  the  attributes  ascribed  to  her,  and  the  character 
of  her  worshi[).  Perhaps  she  is  rather  to  be  identified 
with  AsTarte  and  other  female  divinities  of  th(!  east. 
The  image  of  the  goddess  was  a  ver}'  unattractive  figure 
made  of  wood,  so  timeworn  that  its  kind,  whether  vine, 
cedar,  or  ebonv,  could  not  be  told.  The  upper  [larts 
were  covered  with  paps,  symbolizing  the  productive  and 
sui^taining  powers  of  nature.  She  was  the  goddess  of 
rivers,  pools,  and  hai'bors,  and  her  temple  glittered  in 
brilliant  beauty  at  the  head  of  the  harbor.  It  was  said 
that  the  sun  saw  notliing  in  his  course  more  magnificent 
than  Diana's  temple.  The  "  shrines  "  referred  to  were 
small  portable  images  or  models  of  the  temple.  It  was 
customary  to  carry  these  shrines  on  journe3's  and  mili- 
tary ex|»editions,  and  set  them  u|>  as  objects  of  worship 
in  private  dwellings.  The  (heater  to  which  the  mob 
rushed  with  Paul's  comfianions  was  excavated  from  the 
8loi»ing  side  of  Mt.  Coressus,  looked  towards  the  west, 
was  faced  with  a  portico,  but  roofless.  It  is  said  to  have 
been  the  largest  edifice  of  the  kind  ever  erected  by  the 
Grf^eks.  It  could  seat  50,000  [jcrsons,  and  was  adjacent 
to  the  Agora,  whence  the  crowd  naturally  rushed  into  it. 
The  Asiarchs  (A.  V.  chief  of  Asia)  who  dissuaded  Paul 


124 

from  entering  the  theater  were  not  civil  masristrates,  nor 
priests  in  the  ordinary  sense,  altlionuh  tlieir  office  was 
connected  with  leligion.  Tliey  were  annnally  cliosen  in 
the  cities  of  tlie  province  to  conduct  tlie  sacriiicial  ser- 
vices and  pnhlic  games,  in  honor  of  Diana,  and  derived 
tlieir  titles  from  the  nanje  of  the  province.  Town  clerk 
(v.  35)  is  mnch  too  modest  a  descri|)tion  of  the  person 
wliose  appearance  restored  the  mol)  to  order.  It  is 
prohahle  that  his  otHce  emhraced  functions  hoth  of  a 
civil  and  religious  charactei*.  He  was  evidently  a  leader 
of  the  people  in  a  free  city.  He  was  therefore  more 
careful  of  the  ohservance  of  the  law,  for  the  violation  of 
which  in  a  jiroronsular  province,  as  a  deputy,  he  would 
be  held  amenable.  The  action  of  the  Jews  (v.  33)  in 
putting  forward  Alexander  has  been  variously  iuterpre- 
ted.  8()me  suppose  that  he  was  to  defend  them  from  the 
charge  of  having  anything  to  do  with  Paul,  and  to  ex- 
plain the  difference  between  Jews  and  Christians. 
Others,  that  he  was  a  couvert  to  the  new  reliiiion,  and 
was  maliciously  thrust  forward  by  the  unconverted  Jews 
to  divert  attention  from  themselves.  Calvin  and  others 
8up|)0se  this  to  be  Alexander  the  copyyer-smith.  (2  Tim. 
4:  14.)  Doubtful.  The  reference  of  the  matter  to  the 
"open  courts"  illustrates  again  the  )»rotection  which 
Roman  law  afforded  to  the  i)eaceful  spread  of  the  Gospel. 
At  Miletus  (Acts  20:  19)  Paul  refers  to  these  persecu- 
tions; also  in  1  Cor.  4:  9  and  15;  32.  Twelve  disciples. 
Paul,  on  his  arrival  at  Ephesns  found  twelve  disciides 
who  had  been  baptized,  but  only  with  the  baptism  of 
John.  Who  and  what  were  those  men  ?  Ditficult. 
Neander  thinks  it  impossible  to  form  a  correct  idea  con- 
cerning them.  There  are  certain  traits — to  l)e  gleaned 
from  the  context.  They  were  most  probably  strangers 
in  Ephesus,  few  in  numbers,  distinct  from  the  Christians; 
yet  they  were  such,  for  Paul  so  recognized  them  in  call- 
ing them  disciples.  Term  •'  believe"  used  absolutely, 
always  in  N.  T.  means  faith  in  Jesus  Christ.  Meaniiifi  of 
PauVs  qupsdon  and  iJieir  answer.  Quest.  I:  How  could 
they  be  Christians  without  the  Holy  Ghost  ?  One  an- 
swer makes  the  question  turn  on  the  vlistinctioii  between 
miraculous  and  urdinary  gifts  of  the   Spirit.     Then  it 


125 

would  not  be  implied  that  they  were  ignorant  of  the  H. 
G.  as  taught  in  the  O.  T.,  but  on!}*  of  his  niiracnlons 
gitts.  As  in  the  case  of  the  converts  of  Samaria,  these 
they  did  not  receive  at  first.  This  nnsatisfactory.  It 
involves  two  degrees  of  tlie  Spirit's  presence  in  the  heart 
— and  it  is  improbable  that  they  had  not  heard  of  Pente- 
cost. A  second  answer  is  that  Joljn's  baptism  was  Jew- 
ish, and  that  the  Holy  Spirit  is  a  giit  of  the  Messianic 
time.  Paul's  question  W(Mild  then  be  erpiivalent  to — Did 
ye  receive  the  Pentecostal  gift  of  the  Spirit.  Their  reply 
may  then  be  understood  in  several  ways  : — 1.  Our  bap- 
tism had  no  reference  to  this  period  ;  it  referred  to  John's, 
and  not  to  Christian  baptism.  Did  not  know  the  Spirit 
had  been  given  in  this  measure.  (So  Alexander  and 
Lechler.)  2.  Others  say  that  "  ioriu"  is  used  in  the  ex- < 
elusive  serse.  Then  they  did  not  know  of  his  existence. 
(Kennder  and  Meyer.)  3.  It  was  due  to  their  obscure 
knowledge  concerning  the  Spirit.  Did  not  know  him 
as  a  person  or  as  a  distinct  gift.  Their  knowledge  of 
Jesus  was  confined  to  what  tliey  had  learned  from  John. 
During  the  Anabaptist  controversy  at  time  of  the  Kefor- 
matit)n  they  quoted  this  passage  as  favoring  the  rebap- 
tism  of  children.  Calvin  says  tlie  baptism  in  v.  5 
refers  only  to  the  baptism  of  the  Holy  Ghost.  Result. 
Uf)on  Paul's  presentation  of  the  intent  of  John's  mission, 
and  its  relation  to  Christ,  they  were  rebaptized  in  the 
name  Lord  Jesus,  and  received  the  extraordinary  gift  of 
the  Holy  Spirit.  We  must  therefore  admit  some  dis- 
tinction between  John's  and  Christian  baptism.  Out  of 
tliis  has  arisen  the  question  whether  all  the  disciples  of 
John  were  rebaptized  in  the  name  o^  Jesus  or  not? 
Data  are  insuflicient  for  a  definite  answer,  but  that  it  is 
unessential,  aiqjears  from  the  silence  of  the  record  on  this 
point  in  reference  to  Apollos — (18  :  25-26.)  Notice  that 
this,  the  first  mention  of  the  baptismal  formula  made  in 
Acts^  is  in  the  name  of  Jesus  Christ,  instead  of  the  Trin- 
ity, as  commanded  in  Matt.  28:  19-20.  This  exalts 
Christ,  proving  his  divinity,  and  virtually  establishing 
tlie  Trinity.  In  introducing  into  the  narrative  at  this 
jKtint  this  meeting  between  Paul  and  the  disciples  of 
John,  Baur  finds  au    attempt   ou    the  part  of  Luke  to 


126 

glorify  Paul  amoTis:  John's  disciples,  as  an  ofF'^et  to  the 
esteem  in  wliich  Peter  was  heh]  by  the  Samaritans  and 
family  of  Cornelius,  on  account  of  his  power  of  bestow- 
ing niiraculons  gifts.  (Sec  vs.  6  and  7.)  But  the  only 
historical  point  to  be  noted  is  that  Apollos,  who  was  a 
type  of  the  Johannean  school,  joined  Paul  as  a  liberal. 
During  this  stay  at  Ephesiis  Paul  wrote  his  episiles  to 
Galatians  and  First  to  the  Corinthians. 

SECOND   GROUP. 

Paul's  Epistle  to  the  Galatians.  Galatia  is  the 
Gallia  of  the  east.  The  inhabitants  were  called  Gauls 
bv  the  Romans,  just  as  the  Greek  writers  called  the  in- 
habitants of  ancient  France,  /l/xrira./,  which  is  the  same 
as  A'i/ro;=:  Celts.  Certain  tribes  of  Gauls  below  the 
Pyrenees  in  the  fourth  century  began  to  move  eastward, 
in  a  sort  of  reliex  wave,  along  the  Adriatic  and  Danube. 
They  made  ravages  in  Mace(h)nia,  and  there  came  in  con- 
tact with  Alexander.  In  297  they  divided;  part  attacked 
Delphi  and  were  repulsed.  Under  Brennius  they  at- 
tacked Rome,  and  were  scattered,  the  other  division  took 
possession  of  Chersonesus, (Thrace.)  Invited  bylSicome- 
des  I.,  of  Bithynia,  they  in  287  crossed  over  into  Asia 
Minor,  where  for  a  century  they  were  the  scourge  of  that 
country,  and  extended  their  invasion  far  and  wide.  They 
were  first  checked  by  Attilus  of  Pergamos  about  200 
B.  C,  and  contined  within  a  limit  of  a  province  called 
by  their  own  name.  Then  the  Romans  encountered 
them.  Manlius  in  189  defeated  them.  One  of  their 
princes  was  made  king,  and  the}^  were  governed  as  a 
tetrarchate  for  three  reigns.  At  the  beginning  of  the 
empire,  made  a  province,  including  also  Pisidia  and 
Lycaonia,  Phrygia  and  Pamphylia.  Some  say  they  were 
the  first  Germans  of  antiquity.  Wieseler,  Ols.,  Luther. 
But  ancient  testimony,  and  especially  that  of  their  lan- 
guage, shows  that  they  were  Celts.  Jerome  says  that 
they  kept  their  own  langnas^e  of  the  Rhine.  But  while 
they  retained  their  own,  they  adopted  and  spoke  the 
Greek  as  well.  At  the  time  of  Paul's  visit  they  were 
under  Roman  domination,  and  we  thus  see  the  people 


127 

nnder  the  two  forms  of  Grecian  and  Roman  civilization. 
The}-  present  in  Piinl's  time,  the  cfiaracteristics  peculiar 
to  the  Ganls  of  Cfesar's  time.  They  were  quick,  rest- 
less, fickle,  cruel,  and  fond  of  externulism  in  reliorion. 
On  the  third  journey,  the  church  there  was  already  cs- 
tahlished.  Laro;cly  composed  of  Gentile  converts. 
Time  and  place  of  writhui.  Can  only  be  slathered  from 
indirect  sources  ;  hence  nothino;  certain  can  be  stated. 
Marcion  and  some  modern  critics  have  placed  it  first 
amonsc  PauTs  epistles.  The  fathers  were  divided  between 
Ephesus  and  Rome.  Theodoret  and  others  made  it  first  of 
ei»istle8  written  from  Roman  prison.  Others  say  it  was 
written  last  of  all.  The  Syriac  and  Coptic  W,  also  con- 
tain the  subscription  bfiin.'fq  aTib  ^Piojifj^^  based  doubt- 
less upon  the  supposed  allusion  to  bonds  of  imprison-"- 
Dient  in  G:  17  and  4:  20,  The  majority,  however, 
hold  that  it  was  written  during  the  aforementioned  stay 
at  Ephesus.  Of  these,  some  say  it  was  written,  in  the 
earlier,  others  in  the  later  part  of  the  three  years.  1. 
The  arirument  for  E[)hesu3  is  based  on  the  fact  that  Paul 
was  in  Galatia  tv/ice  before  the  letter  was  written.  In 
4:  13,  "Ye  know  how  through  infirmity  of  the  flesh 
I  preached  the  Gospel  unto  you  at  the  first,"  to  Tzpozsiiou 
evidently  implies  a  second  visit,  which  probably  men- 
tioned (Acts  18  :  23,  "  went  over  all  the  country  of 
Galatia  and  Phrygia  in  order.")  The  enthusiasm  with 
which  they  received  the  Gospel  from  Paul  (4:  14,)  soon 
gave  way  under  false  instruction  to  distrust  and  change 
of  faith  (1  :  6.)  From  the  context,  some  say,  this  nuist 
have  occurred  soon  after  their  reception  of  the  Gospel. 
Others,  soon  after  Paul's  second  visit;  and  others, 
soon  after  the  entrance  of  the  false  teachers.  The  difi'or- 
ences  on  this  point  are  not  essential.  Ellicott  and  others 
fix  the  date  of  writing  early  in  the  three  years.  2. 
Another  view  makes  the  qtiestion  turn  upon  the  persons 
addressed,  whether  they  were  the  inhabitants  of  Galatia 
proper,  or  of  the  province  of  Galatia  as  mentioned  above. 
If  the  latter,  they  urge  that  the  Galatians  are  included 
among  the  churches  of  the  first  journey,  (Acts  14  :  6- 
24.)  Consequently  the  second  visit  had  taken  place, and 
the  epistle   had  been  written   before  the  third  jouruGiy. 


128 

Even  before  the  Jerusalem  council,  (15)  or  Paul  would 
have  cited  liis  positio?i  in  it,  and  ita  decision.  To  this 
view  it  is  ohjected  that  Luke  distins^ni-^hes  by  name  the 
divisions  of  the  Roman  provinceofGalatia,  and  more  accu- 
rately refers  to  the  sub-provinces,  Lycaonia  and  Pisidia. 
We  know  from  history  that  the  political  relations  of  these 
divisions  were  constantly  changing;.  3rd  view,  tiiat  of 
Bleek,  Cony beare  and  Howson,  l^ightfoot,et  al.,  is  that  the 
epistle  wa.s  not  written  from  Ephesus,  but  still  later,  from 
Corinth,  or  on  the  way  to  Corinth  (20:  1  3,)  after  the 
epistles  to  the  Corinthians.  Urged  it)  defence  of  this 
view  :  1.  The  weakness  of  the  other  side,  o'jzio  raykiuc, 
is  indefinite.  2.  Internal  evidence  of  the  epistle  shows 
that  it  is  most  nearly  allied  to  2  Corinthians  and  Romans, 
and  therefore  naturally  comes  between  them,  (a)  It 
agrees  with  2  Corinthians  in  display  of  personal  feelings. 
(b)  With  Romans  in  subject,  style,  and  individual  ex- 
pressions, as  the  Ephesians  and  Colossians  agree.  In- 
stances from  Lightfoot's  table  :  (Gal.  3:  6  and  Rom.  4: 
3,)  airreenn-nt  on  the  ground  of  justilication  ;  (Gal.  3:  10 
and  Romans  4:  15,)  inability  of  ^<'r/c/Z  justification  ;  (Gal. 
8:  12  and  Rom.  10:  5,)  perfect  obedience  to  the  law 
secures  life;  (Gal.  3:  22  and  Rom.  11 :  32.)  God  con- 
trols sin  in  order  to  the  fuller  exhibition  of  ijrace ;  (Gal. 
4 :  5-7  and  Rom.  8  :  14-17,)  adoption  ;  (Gal.  4  :  23-28  and 
Rom.  9:  7,)  believers  the  children  of  the  promise  ;  (Gal. 
5  :  16  and  Rom.  8  :  4,  spiritual  vs.  worldly  life,  (c) 
Galatians  bears  evidence  of  iiaving  been  written  in  the 
heat  of  personal  controversy  and  presents  the  jirst  argu- 
ment in  behalf  of  Pauline  Christianit}'.  Romanj8  seems 
to  have  been  written  after  a  triumph,  and  contains  a  com- 
plete essay,  (d)  This  agrees  best  with  the  history  of 
Paul's  persecution.  This  is  first  alluded  to  in  1  Corin- 
thians. In  2  Corinthians  it  is  at  its  height.  In  Gala- 
tians it  is  subsiding  (6  :  17.)  In  Romans  it  is  over,  (e) 
In  Corinthians,  the  Judaizing  tenets  are  not  promi- 
nently referred  to,  but  both  in  Romans  and  Galatians 
they  are  special  subjects  of  attention.  Answer:  1. 
o\)TM  r«jfiwc,  as  stronger  than  a  mere  temporal  reference, 
embodying  and  implying  the  presence  in  the  Apostle's 
minds  of  vivid  recollections  of  his  relatious  to  them,  and 


129 

hence  liis  astonisliment  that  such  relations  should  so 
readily  he  chanired.  2.  Their  jiositive  argument  rests  on 
the  similarity  of  style  and  thought  hetween  Galatians 
and  Romans.  But  similarity  may  arise  from  similarity 
of  circumstances  and  suhject  as  well  as  juxtaposition  in 
time.  Moret)ver  tenets  of  the  Judaizers  were  not  a  sub- 
ject of  controversy  in  Corinthians,  because  they  were 
not  prominent  in  that  Church. 

l)esi</n  of  Epistle.  The  fixins:  of  the  date  of  this 
ei>istle  early  in  the  sojourn  at  Ephesus  mentioned,  (ch. 
19,)  is  of  special  importance  against  the  skeptical  doc- 
trine of  modern  Rationalists,  who  derive  from  this 
epistle  their  outline  of  N.  T.  history.  But  the  facts  are, 
it  tells  us  little  of  the  foundation  of  Christianity  and  is 
addressed  to  churches  already  founded.  (1.)  "  Ye  did 
run  well,"  (5  :  7.)  (2.)  "  Unto  the  churches  of  Galatia,"  (1  : 
2.)  The  chief  towns  of  Galatia  were  Tavium,  Pessinua 
and  Ancyra,  which  was  declared  the  capital  by  Augustus, 
to  whom  a  temple  was  dedicated  there.  Pessinus,  under 
the  shadow  of  Mt.  Dindymus,  was  the  cradle  of  the  wor- 
ship of  the  great  goddess  Cybele,  and  one  of  the  princi- 
pal commercial  towns  of  the  district.  Tavium  was  at 
once  a  strong  fortress  and  a  great  emporium.  The  gross 
superstitions  and  cruel  rites,  appealing  to  the  senses  and 
passions  of  their  native  religion,  (Druidism)  prepared  the 
Gauls  to  accept  the  worship  of  Cybele,  with  its  wild  cere- 
monial and  hideous  mutilations.  This  embodiment  of 
the  spirit  of  the  old  popular  i-eligions  came  in  contact 
at  Ancyra  with  the  new  political  worship,  which  Roman 
statecraft  had  devised  to  secure  the  respect  of  its  subject 
peoples.  Among  these  people  it  was  not  the  Apostle's 
intention  to  f)reach  the  gospel,  but  he  was  detained  by 
illness  and  his  preaching  met  with  an  eager  reception 
(4  :  13,  14).  The  church  was  composed  chiefly  of  Gen- 
tiles— "Heirs  of  the  promise"  (3:29) — worshipers  of 
heathen  gods  (4:  8),  who  embraced  Christianity  directly 
without  subn)itring  to  the  rites  of  Judaism  (5  :  2;  6:  12). 
The  rai)id  rise  and  prevalence  of  Judaizing  influence  in 
these  churches  upon  the  departure  of  the  Apostles  may 
be  accounted  for,  (1)  By  the  large  number  of  resident 
Jews.      These  had   since  the  conquest  of  Maiilius  been 


130 

attracted  thither  by  the  great  mercantile  advantages 
offered  by  tlie  country.  We  know  that  in  the  generation 
before  St.  PanI,  Augustus  dii-ccted  a  decree  granting 
special  privileges  to  the  Jews  to  be  inscribed  in  the  tem- 
ple at  Ancyra,  the  Galatian  metropolis.  (2)  By  the 
influence  of  false  teachei'B  who  had  come  before  and  after 
from  Jerusalem,  who  treated  slightingly  Paul's  apostolic 
office  and  authority,  alleginif  that  circumcision  was 
necessary  (1 :  1  and  11  ;  5  :  2  ;  6  :  12).  Against  these  Paul 
had  warned  them  when  present.  It  is  very  clear  that 
the  decree  of  the  council  had  not  satisfied  the  Jewish 
party  in  the  church.  Not  content  with  their  opposition 
in  Palestine,  they  followed  up  Paul  in  his  missionary 
journeys.  They  carried  their  regard  for  o.Kternals  to  the 
neglect  of  the  vitality  of  religion.  Moreover,  the  char- 
acter of  the  Galatians  and  their  former  religious  training 
predisposed  them  to  accept  the  Judaistic  ritual  and  Phar- 
isaic ceremonies  (4  :  9).  In  order  to  accomi»lish  the  pur- 
pose of  the  Juilaizers,  the  system  of  doctrine  taught  hy 
Paul,  and  his  authority,  must  be  broken  down.  This 
could  be  effected  only  by  an  attack  upon  Paul.  Hence 
(1)  they  charge  him  with  time-serving  (1  :  10);  (2)  as  not 
having  seen  Christ,  and  hence  without  apostolic  author- 
ity (1  : 1  and  16  ;)  (3)  «s  self-contradictory  and  inconsist- 
ent, in  disregarding  the  law  and  forsaking  circumcision 
(5:  11).  This  was  based  on  his  concessions  to  the  Jewish 
party,  as  in  the  case  of  Timoth\-.  But  that  Paul  had  not 
changed  his  views  as  alleged,  appears  from  the  stand  he 
took  in  reference  to  Titus,  cited  in  chajiter  2  of  the  epis- 
tle. The  effect  of  these  arguments,  however,  was  to 
mislead  many  (3  : 1  ;  4  :  16).  In  refutation,  Paul  was  led 
to  review  his  previous  n)inistry.  This  takes  up  the  first  of 
the  three  sections,  which  comprise  the  epistle.  8ec.  I.  His 
personal  vindication  (chs.  1  and  2).  Sec.  II.  Doctrinal — 
mostly  argumentative.  Theme:  Justification  by  faith — 
not  by  law  (chs.  3  and  4).  Sec.  III.  Hortatory  and  prac- 
tical application  (chs.  5  and  6).  Connection  between 
history  and  the  doctrine  of  this  epistle.  Paul  had  in- 
structed the  Galatians  as  to  the  person  and  sufferings  of 
Christ  (3  :  1);  but  the  continued  attack  calls  for  tiiis  full 
argument  in  defence  of  his  faith.     This  was  drawn  (1) 


131 

from  tlie  evidence  of  tlie  Holy  Spirit  (3  :  2-5);  (2)  from 
the  case  of  Abraliani  (3  :  6-9) ;  (3)  from  the  nature  of  the 
hiw  (3:  10);  (4)  from  tlie  perjietnit}' of  the  covenant  with 
Abraham  (3  :  ir)-17).  Then  he  shows  the  end  of  the  law 
— a  schoolmaster  to  lead  to  Christ,  (3:  10-29);  and  then 
illustrates  the  relation  between  tlie  old  and  new  systems, 
(ch.  4).  Of  the  ettect  of  this  epistle  on  the  Galatiaii 
church  we  know  nothing,  except  inforentially  from  5:10. 
In  post-apostolic  times,  Galatia  was  a  hot-bed  of  ritual- 
ism, a  tendency  to  which  is  referred  to,  4  :  10.  "Asia 
Minor  was  the  nursery  of  heresy,  and  of  all  the  Asiatic 
churches  it  was  nowhere  so  rite  as  in  Galatia."  Ancyra 
was  the  "stronghold  of  the  Montanist  revival,  which 
lingered  on  for  more  than  two  centuries,  splitting  into 
diverse  sects,  each  distinguished  hy  some  fantastic  ges-_ 
ture  or  ritual  observance.  Here  too  we  lind  Ophites, 
Manichajans,  and  sectarians  of  all  kinds."  In  the  fourth 
century  the  peace  of  the  church  was  disturbed  by  two 
bishops  from  this  quarter,  and  by  Marcellus,  whose  rep- 
utation suffered  from  the  more  decided  Sabellianism  of 
his  pupil,  the  hcresiarch  Photinus,  likewise  a  Galatian, 
and  by  Basiiius,  who  leaned  to  the  opposite  extreme, 
Ai'ianism,  and  presided  over  the  semi-Arian  synod  of 
Ancyra,  A.  D.  358.  Gregory  Nazianzen  speaks  of"  the 
folly  of  the  Galalians  who  abound  in  many  impious 
denominations."  The  emjieror  Julian  "  affirms  thai 
whole  villages  in  Galatia  were  depopulated  by  the  Christ- 
ians in  their  intestine  quarrels."  On  the  other  hand,  tho 
churches  of  this  region  furnished  numerous  martyrs  in 
the  Diocletian  persecution.  Subsequently  under  Julian 
the  forces  of  Galatia  were  concentrated  upon  Galatia,  as 
a  key  to  the  heathen  position,  but  the  attempt  was  almost 
fruitless. 

Analysis. — There  is  a  marked  advance  in  the  histor- 
ical development  of  truth  as  seen  from  this  epistle. 
Contents  of  the  Epistlk. 
I.  Personal — chiefly  in  form  of  a  narrative. 

1.  The  salutation,  inti'oducing  its  subject  (1:  1-5). 

2.  Rebukes  apostasy,  denounces  false  teachers,  and 

declares  eternal  truth  of  the  Gospel  which  he 
preached  (6-10). 


132 

3.  This  Gospel  came  directly  from  God. 

(1)  By  siieciiii  revelation  (11,  12). 

(2)  Not  result  of  previous  education  (13,  14). 

(3)  Not  learned  from  Apostles  of  the  circumcis- 
ion, etc.  (15-17). 

(4)  His  first  visit  to  Jerusalem  after  conversion 
afforded  him  neither  close  nor  protracted 
intercourse  with  them  (18-24). 

(5)  In  his  next  visit,  he  carefully  maintained  his 
independence  and  equality  (2:  1-10). 

(6)  At  Antioch  he  rebuked  I'eter's  inconsistency 
(2:11-21). 

The  principles  involved  in  this  incident  introduce  the 
doctrinal  section  of  the  epistle. 
II.  Doctrinal,  mostly  arjrumentative  : 

1.  The  Galatians  self-stultifiod  in  substituting  the 

works  of  the  law  for  the   obedience   of  faith 
^(3:1-5). 

2.  The  true  children,  with  Abraham,  justified  by 

faith  (3  :  6-9). 

3.  The  law  only  condemned  ;  from  this  condemna- 

tion Christ  rescued  (8  :  10-14). 

4.  Thus  he  fulfilled  the  promise  given  to  Abraham, 

which    being  prior  to    the  law  could  not  be 
annulled  by  it  (3:  15-18). 
6.  If  so,  what  was  the  purpose  of  the  law  ?  (3  :  19). 

(1)  Inferior  disj)ensation,  preparatory  to  the 
Gospel  (3:  19-23). 

(2)  Education  for  the  freedom  of  the  Gospel 
(3  :  24-29). 

(3)  To  meet  the  conditions  of  minority,  but  now 
we  are  our  own  masters  (4  : 1-7). 

(4)  Yet  to  this  stale  of  tutelage  the  Galatians 
are  bent  on  returning  (4  :  8-11). 

[This  suggests  his  personal  relations  with  liis  converts 
and  the  conduct  of  their  false  teachers  (4  :  12-20).] 

6.  The  relation  of  the  covenants  of  law  and  grace, 
WMth  the  triumph  of  the  latter,  are  typified  by 
the  history  of  llagar,  Sarah,  and  tlieir  child- 
ren (4  :  21-30). 


133 

Tiie  word  free  is  the  vinculum  of  the  third  section. 
III.  Hortatory,  practical  applications. 

1.  This   freedom    false   teachers  are  endanf^ering 

(5:1-12). 

2.  Let  it  not  degenerate  into  license.      The  walk 

in  the  Spirit  is  the   antidote  both   to   license 
and  ritualism  (5  :  13-26). 

3.  Two  special  injunctions, 

(1)  Mutual  forbearance  and  brotherly  sympathy 
(6  :  1-5). 

(2)  Liberality  (6:6-10). 

Conclu.^ion,  in  Apostle's  handwriting  (6  :  11.) 

4.  Repeated  warning  vs.  Judaizers  (6:12-16). 

5.  Ke  assertion  of  his  authority  (6  :  17). 

6.  Farewell  (6:18). 

[^Suhftiantialb/  from  IJghlfoot.  See  also,  Luther,  Jowett, 
Eadie,  Ellicott,  Meyer,  Lange,  and  other  special  com- 
mentaries.] 

First  Epistle  to  the  Corinthians.  The  place  and 
time  of  compoMlion  are  clearly  given  in  the  epistle  and 
in  Acts.  The  only  existent  difference  respects  the 
order.  Some  who  deny  Paul's  second  imprisonment 
maintain  that  1  Timothy  precedes.  The  Epistle  was 
written  near  the  close  of  the  three  years  stay  in  Ephesua 
(1  Cor.  4:  19;  Acts  19).  1.  Li  the^  spring  of  57  or  58 
A.  D.,  Paul  left  that  city  (1  Cor.  16:8).  2.  He  sends 
the  greetiiisfs  of  Arpiihi  and  Priscilla  (1  Cor.  16:  19 
— cf 'Acts  18  :  18).  3.  The  plan  of  travel  (1  Cor.  11:5  — 
cf.  Acts  20  :  1.  2,  and  19  :  21).  4.  Timothy  had  been  sent 
to  Corinth  prior  to  writing  of  this  letter  (cf.  1  Cor.  4  :  17 
with  Acts  19  :  22),  but  it  was  uncertain  whether  he  had 
arrived  before  the  letter  (1  Cor.  16  :  10).  These  passages 
indicate  the  time  to  be  the  latter  part  of  the  Apostle's 
stay  at  Ephesus.  5.  The  collections  mentioned  (1  Cor. 
16 :  1-3  and  2  Cor.  8  and  9  chs.)  coincide  with  the  Apos- 
tle's above-mentioned  plan  of  going  via  Greece  to  Jeru- 
salem. See  also  Acts  21  :  17,  where  these  collections  are 
referred  to  as  already  completed.  So  also  Rom.  15:  25, 
26.  6.  1  Cor.  5  :  6-8  seems  to  refer  incidentally  to  the 
approach  of  the  passover  of  year  57,  where  the  emended 
text  has  the  present  indie,   instead   of  the  present  subj. 


134 

with  future  signification.  The  inscription  kypdiptj  dTrb 
7i()J.--iov  is  erroneous,  arising  from  a  mistaken  rendering 
of  M (jLxaoov'fJv  yan  dcsfiyonac — I  am  passing  tli rough  Mace- 
donia (1  Cor.  11:5)."" 

GeuiUDencss  and.  AutJienficil)/.  These  are  universally 
acknowledged.  The  whole  epistle  springs  naturally  out 
of  the  circumstances,  and  presents  no  difficulties  arising 
from  change  of  style.  References  to  the  epistle  occur 
very  eai'ly.  Cleniont  of  Rome  refers  to  it  in  his  epistle 
to  this  very  church;  Polycarp.  in  cfjistle  to  Philippians; 
Irenasus  quotes  it  in  his  book  ''  Against  the  Heretics  ;" 
Athenagoras,  quotes  1  Cor.  15  :  53;  Clement  of  Alexan- 
dria cites  it  frequently  and  expli(;itly.  This  is  one  of  the 
four  epistles  unflisputed  by  the  Tiihingen  school. 

This  epistle  is  of  special  histoi-ical  importance,  in  that 
it  gi\es  the  details  of  daily  life  and  practice.  In  Ccn-inth 
Christianity  first  came  into  contact  with  Greek  civiliza- 
tion, and  hence  the  inner  life  of  that  church  is  there- 
fore illustrative  of  Christianity  under  those  conditions, 
and  in  its  outward  relations  to  society  and  government. 
Hence  the  importance  of  the  epistle  as  to  social  and 
practical  questions.  On  account  of  the  diverse  composi- 
tion of  its  membership,  the  church  was  early  split  into 
parties.  To  solve  these  practical  problems  and  subdue 
this  party-strife,  drew  out  the  personal  traits  of  the 
Apostle's  character. 

Additional  liisiorical  jjoints.  1.  Metropolitan  churches 
implied  counin/  churches.  (1  Cor.  1:2;  2  Cor.  1:1.) 
Some  say  that  these  are  but  general  expressions,  some 
that  they  are  catholic  epistles;  others,  that  these  salu- 
tations imply  the  existence  of  Christians  outside,  but  not 
churches,  or  the  plural  would  be  used.  The  common 
view,  however,  is  supported  by  iThess.  1:  7-8  and  2  Thess. 
1:4."  the  churches  of  God."  The  existence  of  country 
churches  is  supported  by  the  probable  spread  of  the  Gos- 
pel while  the  Apostle  was  in  Asia  ;  by  the  Jewish  popu- 
lation in  the  Peloponnesus ;  by  Paul's  use  of  Achaia, 
and  not  Corinth,  when  he  alludes  to  his  wish  to  revisit 
the  churches  there,  and  by  the  testimony  of  Pliu}-,  Justin, 
&c ;  e.  g.,  Pliny  in  a  letter  to  Trajan  says:  "  this  conta- 
gious superstition  is  not  confined  to  the  cities  only,  but 


135 

has  ppread  its  infection  among  the  country  villages." 
So  Justin  in  Dialogue  with  Tryplio.  'Oudk  eu  yu/t  oXo^ 
itrzi  TO  yivo:;  avd^iuoTuov^  ecrs  ftafil^dfxov,  ec'rs  "^  fC^j.rjvwv,  ec're 
&n?uo;  wrcvco'ju  ovnaazc  rcooaayoiiouufiiuajv,  yj  d-iia^o^uov,  iy 
6.i):/uov  xalo'JuiviDV^  -q  iu  a/.r^vrv.^  XTf/VOznoipiou  ocxwji^tiov.  iu 
o}^  firj  (iui  rob  uvoaaro:;  to-j  (rra'jtxor^^si^-o^  /qaoD  vjyjn  xahu- 
■^ayiffTiai  nv  Tzazjil  xo'i  ■rzotffzyj  zCov  o)mv  ycuouTac 

2.  Lost  letters  and  unrecorded  visits.  It  was  mani- 
fest that  freciuent  intercourse  was  sustained,  between  Cor- 
inth and  Ei)hesns  diiriuij^  the  Apostle's  stay  in  the  latter 
place.  The  evidence  for  the  unrecorded  visits  properly 
belongs  to  an  exe^resis  of  2nd  Cor.  It  is  clear  from  1 
Cor.  (5  :  9-12)  that  tiie  Apostle  had  written  a  letter  prior 
to  this  epistle,  which  seems  to  have  started  questions  in, 
the  rninds  of  the  (yorinthians,  which  the  Apostle  answers 
in  ch.  7  and  the  following  chapters.  Oi)j.  The  fathers 
held  that  an  ins|)ii'ed  letter  could  not  be  lost,  and  some 
hold  that  the  reference  is  to  tlie  letter  in  hand.  But  this 
is  unnatural.  There  is  nothing  in  the  former  part  of  the 
epistle  similar  to  what  Paul  refers  to  here.  Thelossof  this 
epistle  is  accounted  for  by  its  speciiic  nature  and  purpose. 
It  seems  to  have  been  uritten  after  his  unrecorded  visit. 
E.xtant  apo(!ryi)hal  epistles  claim  to  be  these  lost  letters. 
In  reference  to  his  communication  with  Corinth,  note  the 
return  of  Apollos  from  Corinth  to  Ephesus  (1  Cor.  16  : 
12), — the  coming  to  him  of  members  of  the  household  of 
Chloe,  1 :  11 ;  of  Stophanasand  Fortunatusand  Achaicus, 
l(j  :  17.  Again  Timothy  was  sent  from  Ephesus  to 
Corinth  (4  :^  17  and  16  :  10),  and  Titus,  ])erhaps  with  this 
epistle,  as  we  learn  from  2  Cor.  12:  17.  Both  returned 
to  Paul  in  Macedonia  before  2  Cor.  was  written,  2  Cor. 
1  :  1  and  7  :  6.  Hence  we  see  that  intercommunication 
was  constant,  and  that  both  by  land  and  sea  it  was  easy. 
These  instances  give  us  an  idea  of  the  fullness  of  the 
Apostle's  care  and  labors  for  the  churches. 

3.  Corinthian  Parties.  (Ch.  1:  12.)  The  party 
spirit  pervaded  the  entire  church.  It  arose  (1)  from  the 
Greek  character.  (2)  From  the  activity  of  a  metropoli- 
tan community.  Surrounded  by  liabits  of  gross  immor- 
ality and  intellectual  pride  and  speculation,  Christians 
were  liable  to  be  corrupted  in  their  conduct,  and  tempted 


136 

to  despise  the  simplicity  of  their  first  teacher.  (3)  From 
Jewish  teachers,  who  had  cotne  thither  recommeiided  hy 
other  churches,  disparaging  in  every  way  the  office, 
character  and  work  of  Panl.  The  sn(hlenness  with  which 
these  parties  spran.":  up  is  noticeahle.  It  was  after  he 
left,  and  he  lieard  of  them  through  Cliloe's  househoUl  (1 
Cor.  1:  11.)  Further  tlie  names  of  these  parties  refer 
to  persons  who  came  after  his  leaving.  These  divisions 
did  not  involve  doctrinal  issues,  but  turned  on  personal 
matters.  Consequently  raul'sdefence and  cliarges  against 
them  are  personal,  and  not  based  on  discussions  of  princi- 
ples respecting  the  way  of  salvation  or  the  efficacy  of 
faith.  The  church  waspredominantly  Gentile,  and  hetice 
the  Judaizers  could  not  insist  on  circumcision.  They 
tlierefore  change  their  method  of  opposition  to  a  personal 
attack.  They  question  Paul's  authority,  but  dare  not 
oppose  his  influence.  These  distinctions  were  local  and 
accidental,  but  not  permanent.  That  they  did  not  con- 
tinue, is  evident  from  Clement  of  Rome,  who  refers  to 
them  as  past.  For  this  reason  Paul  does  not  distinguish 
between  them  in  his  answer,  but  merely  treats  of  their 
existence  and  the  difficulties  resulting  therefrom.  The 
o[)inion  that  the  names  Paul,  Apollos  and  Cephas  by 
which  the  parties  called  themselves  respectivel}-,  are  used 
figuratively,  is  unnatural,  and  has  been  almost  univer- 
ssdly  abandoned.  1.  Those  who  adopted  Paul's  name, 
in  the  main  Gentile  converts,  were  free  and  refused  to 
submit  to  ceremonial  law.  They,  however,  carried  his 
views  to  the  extreme  of  Antinomianism,  thus  misrepre- 
senting him,  and  neglecting  the  grace  of  charit}'  in  insist- 
ing upon  their  personal  liberty.  2.  Those  who  took  Apol- 
los' name,  were  personal  admirers  of  the  eloquent  preach- 
ing of  Apollos,  and  objectors  to  the  mode  of  the  Apos- 
tle's teaching,  as  appears  from  Paul's  defence  of  his  lack 
of  rhetoric  and  "  wisdom  of  words."  (1  Cor.  2  :  1-8 
inc.)  That  the  difference  between  this  and  the  former 
party  was  not  doctrinal  appears  from  Paul's  endorsement 
of  Apollos  (16:  12.)  (Cf.  1:  17  and  2:  16.)  Note 
that  Paul's  defence  gives  important  information 
as  to  the  method  of  preaching.  The  best  preaching 
is  not   the   most  popular.     Neander   says   "  that   Paul 


137 

had  never  yet  been  able  to  lead  them  by  his  dis- 
courses to  perceive  in  the  simple  doctrine  of  the  Gos- 
pel, which  in  the  eyes  of  the  world  was  foolishness, 
the  depths  of  divine  wisdom,  because  an  ungodly  dis- 
position predominated  in  their  mir)ds,  of  which  these 
party  strifes  were  an  evident  sign."  3.  The  Cephas  party 
were  the  Judaizors  above  referred  to.  Professing  to  be 
ministers  of  Christ,  (2  Cor.  11  :  23,)  they  were  false 
Apostles  (2  Cor.  11  :  13,)  assumed  Peter's  name  without 
his  authority',  and  had  come  with* letters  of  commenda- 
tion from  other  churches  (2  Cor.  3  :  1.)  As  is  evident 
from  the  defence  which  the  Apostle  makes  of  his  com- 
mi.nsion,  (1  Cor.  9:  1-3;  2  Cor.  12:  11,  12,)  they  ques- 
tioned his  apostleship,  and  accused  him  of  inconstancy 
and  insincerity,  (2  Cor.  1  :   17-20.) 

4.  The  Christ  Party.  There  is  difficulty  in  determin- 
ing the  characteristics  of  this  party.  All  that  is  clear  is 
that  it  was  a  sect  called  by  the  name  of  Christ,  and 
founded  on  undiscoverable  relations  to  Christ,  (a)  Some 
have  surmised  that  they  were  opposed  to  the  factious 
spirit  of  those  who  followed  the  leadership  of  men,  and 
carried  their  dislike  to  this  spirit  to  the  extreme  of  form- 
ing a  new  party.  But  they  are  censured  as  well  as  the 
others,  (b)  Others  suppose  that  this  party  was  so  called 
because  they  admitted  as  authoritative  only  the  dis- 
courses of  Christ,  (c)  Others,  with  Thiersch,  and  Lechler 
tliat  they  had  been  personal  disciples  of  Christ,  (d) 
Others  that  they  were  the  adherents  of  James,  the 
"  brother  of  the  Lord."  (e)  Others  that  they  were  a  sect 
of  mystics,  who,  taking  Paul's  visions  as  a  basis,  believed 
that  they  enjoyed  visions  and  revelations  of  Christ,  (f) 
Neander's  view  :  "  a  party  desirous  of  attaching  them- 
selves to  Christ  alone,  independently  of  the  Apostles, 
who  constructed  in  their  own  way,  a  Christianity  differ- 
ent from  that  announced  by  the  Apostles,"  either  by  means 
of  a  collection  of  Christ's  sayings,  (see  b  above,)  or  vis- 
ions or  inward  light,  (3)  or  by  means  of  the  light  of 
natural  reason,  which  Neander  prefers,  from  the  known 
peculiarities  of  the  Grecian  mind.  The  same  party 
denied  the  resurrection  from  the  dead,  (1  Cor.  15  :  12,) 
and  illustrates  the  connection    between  rationalism  and 


138 

the  rejection  of  church  authority.  If  this  view  be  true, 
Paul,  doubtless  has  these  in  mind,  when  he  contrasts  rea- 
son and  revehition,  (ch.  2.)  (g)  View  of  Baur  and  Tiibiu- 
gen  school.  Start  with  the  fundamental  assumption  of 
two  conflicting  parties  in  the  church.  Here  Paul  and 
Apollos  are  arrayed  against  the  Peter — and  Christ— party ; 
the  latter  viewed  as  legalists  are  the  Petrine  party,  and 
as  against  Paul,  (no  apostle)  call  themselves  the  Christ 
party,  embracing  the  extreme  Judaizers.  This  they  say 
agrees  with  our  previous  knowledge  of  parties  in  the 
church,  and  accounts  for  the  objection  urged  against 
Paul  that  he  had  never  seen  Christ.  Further,  these  crit- 
ics cite  those  passages  in  this  epistle,  where  Paul  refutes 
the  objection  just  named.  (4:1;  9:1;  15:  8;  2:  16.) 
Paul,  they  say,  renews  his  assertions  in  2  Cor.  10:  7  and 
11  ch.  They  allege  that  the  whole  structure  of  the 
epistle  is  based  on  this  controversy,  and  accordingly  re- 
ceive it  as  genuine.  Objections  to  this  theory  :  1.  We 
have  four  names,  not  two  ;  and  separate  names  forbid 
identifications.  (1  :  12.)  2.  The  inferences  drawn  from 
the  passages  quoted  are  forced  and  fallacious.  They  only 
prove  that  Paul  was  attacked  on  that  ground.  The  per- 
sonal attack  of  the  extreme  Judaizers  is  insufficient 
ground  for  classing  them  as  a  distinct  party. 

4.  Relation  to  heathen  community.  The  infant 
church  struggled  for  life  in  the  midst  of  a  heathen  com- 
munity, surrounded  by  every  incitement  and  facility  to 
evil.  The  epistle  presents  the  eftects  of  these  on  the 
chnrch,  and  corrects  the  false  notions  concerning  the 
purity  of  the  primitive  church,  now  prevalent.  We  are 
here  informed  that  these  churches  suftered  from  the  same 
evils  as  those  of  the  present  day.  In  this  respect,  the 
mother  church  in  Jerusalem  was  distinguished  from  the 
church  in  Gentile  lands.  It  was  founded  on  morality, 
yet  suff'ered  from  internal  corruptions,  corrected  by  per- 
secution. But  in  Corinth  there  was  little  persecution. 
Notice  that  much  gross  evil  may  exist  with  religious 
vitality.  These  churches  far  from  being  in  a  dead  con- 
dition. We  have  in  this  case  an  answer  to  those  who 
oppose  the  success  of  missionaries.  Grace  leaves  nature 
to  a  great  extent  as  it  was.     Much  of  their  immorality 


139 

grew  out  of  false  principles,  which  placed  certain  immo- 
ralities in  the  same  category  as  questions  of  food.  See 
the  Apostle's  treatment  of  these  (clis.  5  and  6.)  The  posi- 
tion of  woman  was  very  degraded.  Under  pretext  of 
religion,  license  existed,  and  though  its  presence  in  the 
church  was  recognized,  yet  so  tainted  was  their  morality, 
that  it  was  excused  on  the  ground  of  liberty.  To  the 
prevailing  sentiment  on  this  point,  Paul  opposes  the 
scriptural  representation  that  the  bodv  is  a  member  of 
Christ  and  a  temple  of  the  Holy  Ghost  (6:  12-20.)  In 
chapter  o  :  1-5  Paul  rebukes  the  church  for  allowing  a 
man  guilty  of  incest  to  remain  in  its  communion.  This 
crime  was  regarded  by  the  Gentiles  with  abhorrence. 
Cicero  speaks  of  such  a  connection  as  an  incredible  crime 
— as  with  one  exception  unheard  of  (Pro  Cluent.  5,  6.) 
Some  have  endeavored  to  explain  this,  and  the  church's 
remissness,  by  a  principle  taught  by  many  of  the  Jews, 
that  all  bonds  of  relationship  were  dissolved  by  conver- 
sion. The  proselyte  became  a  new  creature,  received  a 
new  name.  The  Rabbins  taught,  therefore,  that  a  prose- 
lyte might  lawfully  marry  any  of  his  nearer  kindred. 
Others  that  the  Old  Testament  was  not  then  in  vogue. 
But,  in  the  fact  that  the  Apostle  here  distinguishes  incest 
from  adultery,  we  find  a  recognition  of  the  perpetual 
obligation  of  the  Levitical  law.  (Lev.  18.)  As  to  the 
punishment  "  to  deliver  such  an  one  unto  Satan  for  the 
destruction  of  the  flesh,"  there  are  two  interpretations  : 
One  that  it  is  simply  excommunication  ;  the  other,  a 
miraculous  subjection  of  the  person  to  the  power  of 
Satan.  Some  find  an  explanation  of  the  phrase — "  for 
the  destruction  of  the  flesh" — in  the  gnostic  idea  of 
matter  as  the  seat  of  evil.  From  2  Cor.  5  :  11  it  appears 
that  the  repentance  of  the  otiender  followed  upon  the 
censure  of  the  church,  and  so  the  execution  of  the  sen- 
tence was  remitted.  Riickert,  with  whom  Baur  agrees, 
thinks  there  was  no  repentance — and  although  the 
majority  of  the  church  disapproved  of  the  oflenders,  con- 
duct, they  were  unwilling  to  execute  Paul's  severe  sen- 
tence. Accordingly  from  prudential  motives,  the  Apos- 
tle compromised.  The  main  point  in  the  passage  is  not 
the  sin  of  the  individual   but  of  the  church's   laxity  of 


140 

discipliDe — and  the  effect  of  the  rebuke  is  seen  in  2  Cor. 
7  :  7-16.  From  this  passage  we  may  deduce  the  follow- 
ing principles  and  mode  of  discipline:  (1)  Discipline  is 
to  be  exercised  by  the  church  as  a  body,  and  not  by  the 
officers  alone.  (2)  Its  exercise — solemn  and  public.  (3) 
Its  object,  not  simply  the  preservation  of  the  purity  of 
the  church,  but  the  recover}^  of  the  offender  (5  :  5-11.) 

5.  Relation  to  heathen  magistrates  (6  :  1-11.)  Re- 
bukes spirit  of  litigation  and  exposure  before  heathen 
tribunals. 

6.  The  Apostle's  treatment  of  marriage  in  the  7th 
chapter  refers  to  the  peculiar  relations  the  church  sus- 
tained to  heathen  society,  as  base:l  on  heathen    religion. 

7.  Meats  offered  to  idols.  Markets  were  supplied  from 
the  temples  with  meats  that  had  been  used  in  sacrifices. 
Hence  a  difficulty  arose.  Eating  such  meat  Paul  states 
to  be  a  matter  of  indifference  in  which  Christian  liberty 
was  limited  only  by  the  conscientious  scruples  of  others. 
He  forbids  the  eating  of  them  within  the  precincts  of  the 
temples.  (8:  10;  10:  21-28.)  Notice  that  the  council 
of  Jerusalem  is  said  to  be  opposed  to  this  action  of  Paul. 
There  is  no  difference  in  principle.  The  council's  deci- 
sion was  a  compromise,  and  not  a  declaration  of  princi- 
ple. This  could  not  be  carried  out  literally  in  Corinth. 
Moreover  the  Jewish  claim  was  not  disregarded,  for  the 
Christians  w^ere  enjoined  to  exercise  charity  when  the 
question  was  raised.  The  Apostle  does  not  mention  the 
decree  of  the  council  because  it  was  well-known,  and  not 
addressed  to  those  churches  (Acts  15:  24.)  The  whole 
affords  an  illustration  of  the  laxity  of  Christian  life  and 
Paul's  liberality.  This  abstinence  from  participation  in 
heathen  feasts  was  construed  into  atheism,  and  made  a 
ground  of  persecution.  Christians  were  regarded  as 
ignorant  fanatics,  the  people  hated  them  as  de-^pisers  of 
the  gods, and  the  causes  of  their  misfortune,  the  cultivated 
laughed  contemptuously  at  the  obstinacy  and  confidence 
of  their  faith.  Celsus  employed  all  the  resources  of  his 
intellect  and  eloquence  to  paint  Christianity  as  a  ridicu- 
lous and  contemptible  system,  and  its  followers  as  a  sect 
dangerous  to  the  well-being  of  the  state.  When  to  shield 
himself  from    suspicion,   Nero  charged   the  Christians 


141 

with  firing  Rome,  their  fiendish  execution  served  as  an 
amusement  to  the  populace. 

8.  Worship.  (Ch.  11.)  Women  took  part  in  the 
worship  with  uncovered  heads.  In  all  eastern  countries 
tiie  veil  is  a  symbol  of  modesty  and  subjection.  For 
Corinthian  women  to  discard  the  veil  was  to  r(;nounce 
their  claim  to  modesty,  and  relying  on  the  doctrine  of 
Chrit^tian  freedom  and  tlie  aboli,tion  of  se.xual  distitiction 
in  Christ  (Gal.  3  :  28),  too  eagerly  to  aspire  to  female 
independence.  This  the  Apostle  rebukes,  and  (14  :  34) 
forbids  their  public  speaking  in  the  church.  Lord's  Sup- 
per was  celebrated  in  cotinection  with,  though  distinct 
from  an  ordinary  meal,  called  agape  (dyaKrj).  Thii  had 
a  reference  not  only  to  tlie  original  institution,  but  also 
to  the  sacred  festivals  botli  of  the  Greeks  and  Jews,  con- 
cerning wliich  we  learn  (Xen.  Mem.  III.  14)  that  the  per- 
sons assembled  brought  their  own  provisions,  which 
formed  a  common  stock.  This  communion  on  terms  of 
equality  was  essential  to  the  idea  of  a  Christian  feast. 
But  there  were  divisions  in  the  Corinthian  church  even 
at  the  Lord's  table — the  rich  eating  by  themselves  and 
leaving  their  poor  brethren  mortified  and  hungry.  Com- 
pare this  with  the  treatment  of  the  poor  in  modern 
churclies.  Spiritual  gifts.  Chs.  12  and  14.  See  under 
Acts  2  chapter. 

9.  The  Resurrection  was  denied  by  some  in  the  Cor- 
inthian church  (ch.  15).  By  whom?  Some  say  Saddu- 
cees.  But  they  were  so  opposed  to  Christianity,  that  no 
party  in  the  church  was  dominated  b^;  their  influence. 
Others  infer  from  Paul's  answer,  in  which  he  quotes 
their  maxim,  "Eat  and  drink,  for  to-morrow  we  die,'' 
that  they  were  Epicureans.  The  common  opinion  is  that 
the  influence  of  oriental  philosophy  in  the  Corinthian 
church — referred  to  in  later  epistles — gave  rise  to  this 
heresy.  They  objected  that  it  was  impossible  to  recover 
the  identical  body,  and  —  agreeably  to  their  dualistic 
ideas — undesirable,  as  the  body  would  only  bean  imped- 
iment to  the  spirit.  Thus  the  Christ-party  (rationalists) 
misinterpreted  Christ's  word  and  expected  a  spiritual 
resurrection  only  (15  :  35).  Neander  agrees  with  this 
view.     The  denial  of  this  doctrine,  however,  might  have 


142 

come  from  ai^v  source.  The  Stoics  were  pantheists,  and 
regarded  the  soul  as  etherealized  matter.  The  Epicureans 
believed  in  the  annihilation  of  body  and  soul  together. 
The  Platonists  believed  in  the  immortality  of  the  soul 
only,  which  they  regarded  as  eternal,  as  eternally  pre- 
existent,  and  as  passing  through  an  endless  series  of 
transmigrations.  In  Athens,  where  Paul  came  in  conflict 
with  these  same  systems  of  philosophy,  the  resurrection 
was  denied  (Acts  18  :  32). 

Analysis. 
I.  Salutation  (1 :  1-9). 
II.  Reproof  of  the  factions,  (1  :  10—4  :  20). 

1.  Contrasts  human  and  divine  wisdom,  (1:  11-2:  5). 

2.  "  his  own    simple   preaching   with    the 
presumption  of  his  followers,  (2  :  6-3  ch.) 

3.  The  proper  relation  of  teachers  and  disciples,  (3 
to  4  :  20.) 

III.  Intercourse  with  heathen,  (4:  21—6:  20.) 

a.  Incest  and  discipline.     (5  chapter.) 

b.  Lawsuits,  (6 :  1—12.) 

c.  Christian  department  in  sexual  relations,  (6  :  12 — 

6  :  20.) 

IV.  Answers  to  the  letter  of  the  Corinthian  church,  (7  to 

14:  40.) 

a.  Marriage,  (7  c.) 

b.  Heathe^n  feasts,  (8  to  11  :  1.) 

c.  Public  Worship,  (11 :  2—14  :  40.) 

(1.)  Male  and  female  head-dress,  (11 :  2—11 :  16.) 
(2.)  Lord's  Supper,  (11 :  17  to  34.) 
(3.)  Exercise  of  spiritual  gifts,  (12  to  14  :  25.) 
(4.)  Unity  and  uniformity,  (14:  26  to  14:  40.) 
V.  Resurrection  of  the  dead,  (15  c.) 

Future  state  the  aim  and  end  of  Christian  life. 
VI.  Conclusion  of  a  personal  nature,  (16  c.) 

Paul's  Second  Epistle  to  the  Corinthians.  The 
events  in  the  life  of  Paul,  from  the  spring  of  57  until 
the  last  journey  to  Jerusalem,  a  period  of  some  ten 
months,  Luke  sums  up  in  three  verses.  (Acts  20:  1-3.) 
Intellectually  this  period  was  the  most  active  and  influ- 
ential of  Paul's  career,  as  we  learn  from  the  epistles.  2 
Corinthians  and  Romans,  written  within  its  limits.    From 


143 

ch.  2  we  learn  that  Paul  left  Ephesus,  in  deep  dejection, 
on  account  of  the  cljaracter  of  the  Corinthian  church. 
He  had  however  determined  not  to  visit  tlieni  in  this 
state  of  mind,  (2  Cor.  2:  1)  and  had  previously  sent 
Timothy  (1  Cor.  4  :  17)  to  forward  the  collection  and 
counteract  the  disturbing  influence  in  the  Corinthian 
church.  Failing  to  hear  from  or  through  Timothy,  the 
Apostle  in  his  anxiety  dispatclied  Titus,  (2  Cor.  2:  12-13,) 
and  instead  of  sailing  directly  to  Corinth,  took  his  de- 
parture through  Macedonia,  when  the  outbreak  at  Ephe- 
sus forced  him  to  leave,  delaying  his  visit  until  the 
eifect  of  his  former  letter  should  be  made  known  to  him 
by  Titus.  lie  accoi'dingly,  tarried  on  h\%  way  at  Troas, 
waiting  for  Titus,  but  in  his  eagerness  to  hear  from 
Corinth,  he  pressed  forward  to  Macedonia,  where  he  raet" 
Titus  with  a  good  report,  (2  Cor.  7:  6,  7.)  In  Macedonia 
he  w\is  rejoined  by  Timothy  also.  Whether  he  had 
reached  Corinth,  or  been  delaj-ed  in  Macedonia,  is  uncer- 
tain (1  Cor.  16:  10;   2  Cor.  1:1.) 

Time  and  place  of  composition.  From  Macedonia,  he 
sends  Titus,  with  tliis  epistle,  desiring  him  to  complete 
the  collections,  (2  Cor.  8  :  6.)  In  corning  to  Corinth  the 
third  time,  Paul  in  writing  to  the  Corinthians  boasts  of 
the  liberality  of  the  churches  iji  Macedonia,  and  in  Mace- 
donia he  boasts  of  tlie  churches  in  Achaia.  (8  :  1-5  and 
ch.  9.)  But  inasmuch  as  certain  Macedonians  might  ac- 
company him  to  Corinth,  he  exhorts  them  in  this  letter 
to  sustain  the  reputation  he  had  given  them  (vs.  3  and  4.) 
Tlie  Syriac  version  and  B  say  it  was  written  from  Philippi. 
Time — a  few  months  later  than  the  1  Cor.,  in  the  ftill  of 
A.  D,  57,  sufficient  to  allow  Titus  to  reach  Rome  and 
return  to  Philipi)i,  It  is  the  least  methodical  of  Paul's 
epistles,  abounding  in  severity  and  vindication  of  charac- 
ter. As  1  Corinthians  affords  the  most  complete  picture 
of  the  church  among  the  heathen,  this  gives  the  most 
complete  portraiture  of  Paul. 

HiMorical  Points.  (1.)  Evidence  of  an  unrecorded  visit 
to  Corinth — (12  :  14.)  This  must  have  occurred  before 
the  first  epistle  was  written,  as  may  be  seen  from  com- 
parison of  1st  and  2d  epistles.  Certain  points  of  2  Cor. 
are  otherwise  not  easily  explained — (12  :  14  ;  13  : 1 ;  2:1; 


144 

12:  21.)  Some  say  that  he  was  ready  to  come  the  third 
time,  but  the  Apostle  says — "  Am  coming  the  third 
time."  (18  :  1.)  So  (13  :  2)  a  second  time  to  rebuke, 
which  does  not  include  the  first  visit.  Again,  (2  :  1) 
"  will  not  come  again  in  heaviness."     It  is  objected  from 

1  :  15,  16  that  the  "  second  benefit" — refers  to  his  pro- 
posal to  visit  them  twice  on  the  same  journej^,  instead  of 
indicating  a  third  visit.  But  it  is  simply  a  notice  of  a 
contemplated  change  of  the  plan  mentioned  (1  Cor. 
16  :  5.)  It  is  urged  further  that  Luke  does  not  mention 
this  journey.  Ans.  This  does  not  fall  in  with  Luke's 
design  of  recording  the  work  at  centers,  and  occurs 
within  the  period  of  the  Apostle's  labors  at  Ephesus. 
(Acts  19.)  Some  think  this  visit  merely  a  return  from 
an  excursion  made,  during  the  stay  at  Corinth  (Acts  18.) 
Most  sav — it  was  made  from  Ephesus — direct  to  Corinth 
and  before  the  writing  of  1  Cor.,  because  in  1  Cor.  16  :  5 
the  visit  he  had  then  in  mind  was  to  be  made  through 
Macedonia,  a  reference   to   which   they  say  is   found  in 

2  Cor.  15  :  16.  But  the  plain  inference  from  that  passage 
is  that  the  visit  there  projected  was  not  fulfilled. 

(2.)  Second  lost  letter.  Bleek  with  whom  iTeander 
agrees,  holds  to  a  second  lost  letter,  written  after  the 
sending  of  1  Corinthians,  Timothy  had  returned  from 
the  vistt  mentioned  in  1  Cor.  with  a  bad  report,  respect- 
ing the  disposition  of  a  part  of  the  church.  In  conse- 
quence Paul  wrote  a  severe  letter  and  sent  it  by  Titus, 
and  remained  in  great  anxiety  until  he  heard  of  its  effect. 
See  2  Cor.  This  view  turns  upon  the  point,  that  there 
is  nothing  in  1  Cor.  severe  enough  to  form  a  basis  for  the 
references  in  the  second  epistle.  Meyer  denies  this. 
Alford — possible  ;  Kling,  et  al. — not  proven. 

(3.)  Description  of  hardships  (1  Cor.  15  :  32.)  Some 
understand  a  literal  exposure  to  wild  beasts.  Against 
this  is  urged— (1.)  the  improbability  that  a  Roman  citi- 
zen should  be  subjected  to  that  punishment.  But  lioman 
citizenship  did  not  prevent  Paul's  being  twice  beaten 
with  rods.  (2.)  Silence  of  Acts,  on  this  point.  But 
scarcely  a  tithe  of  what  Paul  did  and  suftered  is  recorded 
in  the  Acts.  (3.)  It  is  not  mentioned  in  2  Cor.  11 :  23-29. 
In    as  much  as   this   expression — "  fighting   with    wild 


145 

beasts,"  is  often  used  figuratively  by  the  ancients  for  con- 
tests with  enraged  men,  and  since  Paul  was  exposed  to 
tlie  violent  tumult  of  the  people  at  Ephesus,  it  is  most 
probably  to  be  understood  figuratively  here.  Mostadopt 
this  view.  (1  Cor.  16  :  9,)"  and  refer  (2  Cor.  1  :  8,  9)  to 
the  same  conflict,  which  was  so  severe  that  the  Apostle 
almost  despaired  of  life,  and  hoped  only  in  the  resurrec- 
tion. A  like  reference  is  made  of  the  temptations  and 
the  labor  accomplished  by  tears  in  Acts  20:  19.  To 
this  time  of  confiict  is  also  referred  the  occasion  in 
which  Aquila  and  Priscilla  risked  themselves  (Romans 
16  :  8,  4.)  This  state  of  affairs  shows  tlie  activity  of  the 
Jewish  enemies  in  P]phesns — and  indicates  that  they  sent 
their  emissaries  to  Corinth  at  the  same  time.  AIford_ 
says  that  2  Cor.  1  :  8,  9  refers  to  sickness).  In  ('orinth" 
Paul  endured  a  process  of  mental  suffering.  In  E|)hesus 
he  went  through  a  corresponding  process  of  external 
suffering.  Gives  a  review  of  his  external  afflictions  in 
contrast  with  his  bodily  infirmity.  In  ten  years  he  had 
been  beaten  8  times,  yet  Acts  mentions  but  one  (Acts 
16:  22,  23);  suffered  three  shipwrecks,  none  of  which  is 
mentioned  in  Acts.     (2  Cor.  11 :  23-28.) 

Theories  of  the  thorn  in  the  iiesh  (2  Cor.  12  :  7).  (1) 
Spiritual  solicitation  of  the  devil.  (2)  Opposition  from 
one  or  more  adversaries.  Calvin  et  <iL  (3)  Some  griev- 
ous bodily  pain, — hypochondria,  epilepsy,  disease  of  eyes 
—(Gal.  4  :  14) ;  (1  Cor.  2:3):  (Gal.  6  :  11.)  It  was  such 
as  to  render  necessary  the  use  of  an  amanuensis.  Some 
have  attributed  it  to  the  effect  of  the  light  at  time  of  his 
conversion.  It  was  apparent  to  others,  and  therefore 
depressed  hirn  in  spirits.  It  has  been  affirmed  from 
2  Cor.  10  :  10  "  his  bodily  presence  is  weak,  and  his 
speecli  contemptible."  But  tliis  does  not  accord  with 
his  abundant  labors,  and  the  acceptance  with  which  he 
was  heard  at  Athens,  his  effective  oratory  before  Felix 
and  Festus ;  at  Lystra  his  being  taken  for  Mercury. 
Tradition  sets  St.  Paul  before  us  as  having  the  strongly 
marked  features  of  a  Jew — yet  not  without  some  of  the 
finer  lines  indicative  of  Greek  thought.  Ilis  stature  was 
diminutive,  and  hody  disfigured  by  some  lameness  or 
distortion,  beard  long  and  thin,  head  bald,  complexion 


146 

transparent,  eyes  bri«:lit  and  gray,  under  thick,  over- 
hanging eye-brows,  witli  a  cheerfnl  and  winning  expres- 
sion of  c'onntenance.  Men  of  delicate  health  have  often 
gone  througli  tlie  greatest  exertions,  e,  g.,  Alfred  the 
Great.  See  Mahdas  and  Nice|)liorus,  as  quoted  by  Cony- 
beare  and  Ilowson,  p.  224,  note  3. 

(4.)  Visions  were  designed  to  afford  evidence  of  God's 
favor  in  answer  to  the  attacks  of  opponents,  and  are  im- 
portant in  their  connection  with  the  doctrine  of  tlie 
resurrection.  Baur  says,  that  in  answer  to  those  wlio 
objected  to  the  Apostle  that  he  had  not  seen  Christ,  Paul 
urges  these  visions,  implying  that  to  have  seen  Christ 
personal!}'  was  not  a  necessary  qualification  of  an  Apos- 
tle. But  Paul  distinguishes  between  the  vision  on  the 
way  to  Damascus,  and  these.  Does  not  base  his  apos- 
tleship  on  the  latter  (Gal.  1 :  1  and  1  Cor.  15  :  8;  9:1). 
Moreover,  the  account  does  not  say  that  lie  saw  Ciirist 
in  the  vision  (2  Cor.  12:  1-4),  nor  does  the  time  of  this 
agree  with  that  of  his  conversion.  It  may  have  occurred 
in  Tarsus  or  Antioch.  De  Wette  says,  the  Christ  party 
at  Corinth  ])rofessed  to  enjoy  this  mode  of  commnnicat- 
ing  with  Christ.  Hence  I'aul  made  the  same  profession. 
These  visions  form  a  connected  chain,  and  occur  at  every 
crisis  in  the  development  of  doctrine.  (1)  At  conversion 
(Acts  9:1-5);  (2)  At  reception  of  his  commission  on 
return  to  Jerusalem  (Acts  22:  17;  Gal.  1  :  18,  19);  (3) 
At  Troas  (Acts  16  :  9)  direction  to  evangelize  Europe ; 
(4)  When  depressed  by  result  of  his  European  work,  in 
Corinth,  (Acts  18  :  9) ;'  (5)  Night  after  his  arrest  in  Jeru- 
salem (Acts  23  :  11) ;  (6)  In  shipwreck,  going  to  Rome, 
(Acts  27  :  24) ;  (7)  (2  Cor.  12 :  2).  Some  say^his  last  is 
only  another  account  of  his  conversion.  Wieseler,  that 
it  is  same  as  trance  at  Troas.  But  does  not  agree  with 
the  account  of  that.  If  2  Cor.  was  written  in  A.  D.  57, 
then  14  years  before  would  bring  it  to  43,  about  the  time 
that  Barnabas  took  Saul  from  Tarsus  to  Antioch,  For 
him  to  enjoy  a  vision  at  that  time  would  be  analogous  to 
his  subsequent  history,  and  throws  light  upon  the  apos- 
tolic zeal  and  the  courage  of  his  faith. 

(5.)  Collections  for  poor  i>i  Jerusalem.  The  combi- 
nation of  the  passages  referring  to  this  collection   forms 


147 

one  of  the  threads  for  determining  the  time  of  the  com- 
position of  the  epistle.  Acts  11  :  20  shows  the  oriijin  of 
the  movement.  Acts  15  :  6,  Gal.  2  :  10,  1  Cor.  16:  1, 
show  the  authoritative  recog'nition  of  it.  Acts  18  :  23 
exhibits  the  beginnintr  of  its  operation.  1  Cor.  16:  1-2 
shows  the  method  :  Titus  is  sent  to  further  and  complete 
it  (2  Cor.  8  :  6-10) ;  and  afterwards  (Ronnins  15  :  25)  we 
have  notice  of  its  completion,  and  Paul's  readiness  to 
depait  with  it  to  Jerusalem  (cf  Acts  20  :  22.)  In  2  Cor. 
9  we  learn  of  the  liberality  of  the  church — whilst  the 
whole  is  an  evidence  of  its  unity  and  systematic  effort. 
The  fact  of  commissioners  accompanying  Paul  is  an  evi- 
dence of  his  caution  against  susi:)icion.  Notice  the  pov- 
ert}'  of  the  church  evidenced  here,  as  compared  with  the 
motiier  cliurch  in  Jerusalen). 

Analysis. 
I.  Vindication  of  his  life,  chs.  1  to  7. 
IT.  Collections,  8,  9. 
III.  Justification  of  his  apostleship,  10,  11,  12,  13. 

Remai-k  :  the  unity  of  this  epistle  has  been  attacked. 
Wieseler  says  that  the  first  7  chapters  were  written  be- 
fore Titus  arrived.  References,  special  commentaries 
on  I.  and  II.  Corinthians,  Peile,  Stanley,  Hodge,  Ellicott. 
articles  in  Smith's  Dictionary,  Lange,  Meyer. 

Paul's  Epistle  to  the  Romans.  Time  and  Place  of 
Composition.  Written  from  Corinth  in  the  spring  of 
58  A.  D.,  or  as  others  with  Meyer  59  A.  D.  Argu- 
ment, (1)  From  Rom.  15  :  25,  we  find  this  letter  was 
written  when  the  Apostle  was  about  to  depart  for 
Jer.  with  the  contributions  from  the  Macedonian  and 
Achaian  churches.  According  to  1  Cor.  16:  1-3,  2  Cor. 
9  :  5  he  brought  this  collection  to  an  end  in  Corinth, 
and  from  Acts  20:  3  we  learn  that  prior  to  setting  out 
for  Jerusalem  he  had  spent  three  months  in  the  vicinity 
of  that  city,  whence  he  expected  to  sail  via  Ephesus,  so 
as  to  reach  Jer.  by  Pentecost,  (Acts  20  :  16.)  (2)  From 
Rom.  15  :  19-23  we  learn  that  at  the  time  of  writing  his 
labors  in  the  east  were  completed.  In  tliis  connection 
tlie  question  has  been  raised,  wliether  Paul  entered  Illyr- 
icum,   or   but    extended    his    labors    unto   its    borders. 


148 

From  tlie  force  of  the  language  in  v.  23  and  the  fact  that 
Titns  afterwards  preached  the  Gospel  in  Dalmatia, 
(2  Tim.  4:  10,)  some  with  Meyer  have  adopted  the  possi- 
ble interpretation  that  Paul  extended  his  labors  into  that 
province.  There  is  however  no  express  mention  of  the 
fact  either  in  Acts  or  the  Epistles.  (3)  Iji  Rom.  15  :  30- 
31  Paul  regards  the  danger  connected  with  a  visit  to 
Jerusalem  as  imminent,  "(cf  Acts  20  :  25  and  21  :  20  ff.) 
(4)  The  place  is  pointed  out  by  evidejice  whicli  cannot 
he  misap|»lied,  i.  e.,  names  in  tlie  salutation.  Tlie  letter 
was  written  in  the  city  by  Tertius  :  it  mentions  Gaius, 
Paul's  host,  (16  :  23)  who  was  probably  one  of  the  chief 
members  of  the  Coiinthian  church  (1  Cor.  1  :  14.)  Also 
Erastus  "  the  treasurer  of  the  city,"  (16  :  23)  elsewhere 
mentioned  in  connection  with  Corinth  (2  Tim.  4  :  20) ; 
(cf.  Acts  19  :  22.)  Timothy  and  Sosipater  were  also  with 
him  (Rom.  16  :  21,)  who  as  we  learn  from  Acts  20  :  4 
were  his  companions  at  Corinth.  The  epistle  was  sent 
by  Phoebe,  wdiom  the  Apostle  specially  commends  to  tlie 
Romans,  (16  :  1)  and  who  was  a  deaconess  of  Cenclirea, 
a  port  town  of  Corinth.  The  word  deaconess  never 
occurs  in  the  A.  V.  and  our/ouoc:  is  properly  translated  in 
the  feminine  here  only.  It  is  said  this  use  of  the  term 
implies  tlie  existence  of  the  office  more  fully  described 
in  1  Tim.  5:  9.  Also  that  where  women  are  spoken  of 
as  Paul's  companions  we  ai-e  to  understand  them  as  hold- 
ing this  office.  The  identification  of  this  office  with  the 
"widows"  mentioned  1  Tim.  5:9-11  and  Tit.  2  :  4  is 
disputed  by  Neander,  but  we  are  at  least  dependent  upon 
these  j)assages  for  the  qualifications  of  the  historic  othce, 
mentioned  in  Apos.  Const.  Bk.  Ill,  and  in  Pliny's  letter 
to  Trajan. 

Origin  of  the  Church  in  Rome.  Of  the  official  founding 
we  have  no  record.  The  first  mention  of  the  fact  that 
Christians  were  in  Rome  occurs  in  Acts  18  :  2,  where  the 
decree  of  Claudius  (A.  D.  41-45)  is  alluded  to  as  the 
cause  of  Aquila  and  Priscilla's  leaving  Rome.  Suetonius 
gives  as  the  cause  of  this  decree  (Vita  Claud.  25)  the 
tumultuous  l)ehaviour  of  the  Jews  (Chresto  impulsore.) 
This  as  we  have  seen  is  to  be  taken  as  a  proper  name, 
and  the  reference  is  either  to  an  ajritation  over  the  Jew- 


149 


ish  doctrine  of  a  reif]^nin<;  and  conquering  Messiah,  or 
over  tlie  Cliristinn  doctrine  of  the  Messiahship  of  Jesus. 
Tiie  Christiiins  as  a  sect  were  not  distinguished  from  tlie 
hody  of  Jews,  and  conse((nenth-  banished  with  thern, 
sometime  between  49  and  63  A.  D.  There  were  Chris- 
tians living  in  Puteoli,  a  suburban  city,  on  Paul's  arrival 
there  in  63  A.  D.,  and  at  Appii  Forum  and  the  Three 
Taverns  he  was  met  l)y  l)rethren  from  Rome  (Acts  28: 
14-15,)  lience  we  infer  the  existence  of  a  prominent 
cliurch  in  the  latter  place  (cf  Kom.  1  :  8-15.)  To  this  is 
objected  that  tiie  Jewish  elders  (Acts  28  :  21-22,)  were 
ignorant  of  the  tenets  of  Christianity,  which  ignorance, 
it  is  said,  would  argue  the  insignificance  of  the  church 
there.  Baur  accepting  the  description  of  the  church  found 
in  1  chiip.  of  this  f  pistle  regards  tlie  above  |>assage  in-_ 
Acts  unliistoricid  and  illustrative  of  the  doctrinal  tend- 
ency of  the  author,  to  harmonize  the  Petrine  and  Pauline 
sections  of  the  church.  Olshausen  thinks  the  expulsion 
of  the  Jews  had  induced  the  Roman  Jewish-Christians 
to  separate  themselves  entirely  from  the  Jews,  so  that  on 
the  return  of  the  latter  the  former  remained  unnoticed 
by  them.  Neander  accounts  for  their  want  of  knowledge 
by  the  vast  size  of  the  city.  Baumgarten  by  the  pre- 
dominance of  the  Gentile  Christians  leading  Jevvs  to 
ignore  them.  The  best  view  is  that  the  Jewish  leaders 
liere  dissemble  or  disguise  their  knowledge  of  the  Chris- 
tian sect,  either  from  a  8ui)erci lions  disposition  to  dis- 
parage its  importance  in  addi-essing  one  of  its  I'ing-lead- 
ers,  (Acts  24  :  5,)  or,  with  Meyer  and  Lightfoot,  from  pru- 
dential motives,  and  an  unwillingness  to  be  involved  in 
quarrels  which  had  previously  caused  their  misfortunes. 
Size  of  the  church.  The  ef)istle  [)rove8  that  it  was  large 
and  distinguished  (1  :  8-13.)  (1.)  There  were  distin- 
guished teachers  among  them  who  had  been  Christians 
before  Paul,  (16  :  5,  7.)  (2.)  The  numerous  salutations 
contained  in  ch.  16.  (3.)  The  fact  that  the  most  im- 
portant of  Paul's  letters  was  written  to  the  Romans 
proves  that  the  church  there  was  large  and  organized, 
and  had  existed  for  years  before  58  (Ron).  15  :  23  ;  cf.  22 
and  I:  13.)  Gibbon  says  :—"  The  Christians  at  Rome 
at  the  time  of  the   accidental   persecution   of  Nero,  are 


150 

represented  by  Tacitus  '  wgens  midtitudo.'  "  "  A  more 
careful  inquiry,  liowever,  sooti  demonstrated  that  the 
ottenders  did  not  exceed  7000."  Merivale,  speaking  of 
the  tire  in  the  year  64,  says  of  Christianity  that  it  was 
then  eliecting  "  conversions  even  in  high  places,  not 
among  the  freedmen  of  the  great  Roman  families  only, 
but  among  Romans  themselves,  men,  and  still  more, 
women  of  tlie  highest  rank."  Some  argue  from  the 
silence  of  the  Satirists  that  the  church  was  small.  But 
we  do  find  that  the  Jews  were  a  subject  of  satire,  and  it 
is  known  that  long  after  this  the  Christians  were  still  con- 
founded with  the  Jews.  (Cf.  Juvenal,  XIV.,  Sat.  96  ff.) 
(Horace  Sat.  1,  V.  96  ;  1,  IV.,  142.)  Silence  of  the  phi- 
loso[»hers  can  be  accounted  for  in  the  same  way.  Note 
Seneca's  remark  concerning  the  Jews.  Victi  ricforibus 
leges  dederimi.  Tacitus  is  as  late  as  Marcus  Aurelius,  in 
whose  army  large  numbers  of  Christians  served,  yet  he 
says  nothing  about  them.  By  their  withdrawal  fi-om  the 
public  and  social  habits  of  the  lieathen,  and  their  purity 
of  life.  Christians  excited  in  the  breasts  of  others  feel- 
ings of  mingled  hatred  and  respect.  Hence  the  silence 
of  public  comment  and  the  caution  of  the  Jewish  elders. 
It  is  not  difficult  to  account  for  the  introduction  of 
the  Gospel  to  Rome.  The  Jews  were  there  in  very  large 
nundjers.  It  was  the  metro]K)lis  of  the  world,  to  which 
captives  in  war  were  carried  from  all  nations,  Many 
converts  would  thus  appear.  It  is  probable  that  some 
of  the  converts  at  Pentecost  (Acts  2  :  10)  were  from  Rome. 
On  the  persecution  following  the  death  of  Stephen,  dis- 
ciples went  to  Cyprus  and  Phoenicia,  and  probably  to 
Rome  also  (Acts  11  :  19,  20.)  It  could  not  have  been 
organized  by  Peter  according  to  the  well-known  tradi- 
tion, because  Paul  wrote  his  epistle  about  A.  D.  59. 
Peter  was  not  in  Rome  and  never  had  been  there,  (Acts 
19  :  21  ;  Romans  15:  20.)  There  is,  moreover,  no  refer- 
ence to  Peter's  being  in  Rome  in  Luke's  nor  in  Paul's 
letters  from  Rome.  Meyer  says  the  church  of  Rome 
had  a  Pauline  organization,  (as  opposed  to  a  Petrine.) 
Lightfoot  thinks  the  organization  was  not  perfected  until 
Paul's  arrival.  It  was  probably  organized  by  pupils  of 
Paul,  among  whom  note  Priscilla  and  Aquila,  (Rom. 
16  :  3.) 


151 

Composition  of  the  church.  (1.)  Baur  and  the  Tiibin- 
cTQw  critics  say  that  the  Jewish  element  largely  predomi- 
nated, becanse  (7  :  1)  they  are  spoken  of  as  knowina^  the 
law,  and  the  O.  T.  is  frequently  referred  to.  (2.)  Others 
with  Meyer  hold  that  the  Gentile  element  ytredominated, 
becanse  this  is  not  a  [lolemic  letter,  nor  addressed  to  the 
circumcision.  Paul  approves  the  doctrines  tanij^ht  in  the 
church,  (1  :  6-13)  calls  them  Gentiles,  and  asserts  himself 
to  be  the  Apostle  to  the  Gentiles.  (8.)  The  third  view, 
seekino:  to  combine  the  references  in  the  epistle,  con- 
cludes that  the  church  was  larj^ely  composed  of  prose- 
lytes, of  whom  there  were  many  in  Rome.  This  how- 
ever does  not  explain  the  difficulty.  The  apostle  directly 
addresses  Jews  and  Gentiles.  (4.)  Correct  view.  Cliurch 
contains  both  elements.  The  Gentiles  are  exhorted  to" 
humility,  and  the  Jews  warned  of  the  final  rejection  of 
the  Judean  opjjonents,  (16  :  17,  18.)  Lightfoot  reo-ards 
the  Jewish  element  as  the  stronojer,  basing  his  conclusion 
on  the  supposition  tlnit  Philippians  was  the  first  of  the 
epistles  written  in  prison,  and  that  it  is  directed  agidnst 
Jewisli  opponents.  Meyer  says  thattliis  opposition  arose 
later,  and  is  mentioned  in  later  epistles,  and  Philippians 
is  conciliatory  in  tone.  The  Jews  are  saluted  (ch.  3  : 
3  ff.)  and  both  parties  are  freely  exhorted.  The  Gentiles, 
as  in  Corinthians,  are  exhorted  to  abstain  from  giving 
offence,  and  the  Jews  to  know  their  place  (Phil.  3  :  IG- 
18.)  h\  Philemon  Paul  simply  refers  to  the  fact  that 
some  about  him  preach  Christ  even  of  envy  and  strife, 
(1  :  15.)  Drawing  an  inference  from  (16  :  17,)  Lightfoot 
regards  the  church  as  heterogeneous,  whose  only  bond 
of  uinon  was  faith  in  Christ,  and  not  formed  into  one 
body  until  Paul  came.  Again,  the  Roman  church  was 
not  Latin,  but  chiefly  Greek.  This  is  well  established  : 
(1.)  From  the  fact  that  the  salutations  contain  chiefly 
Greek  names.  (2.)  The  names  of  the  bishops  of  Rome 
for  the  first  two  centuries  were  Greek,  with  few  excep- 
tions. (3.)  All  the  literature  of  the  early  Roman  church 
was  written  in  the  Greek  tongue.  (Milman's  Latin 
Christianity,  p.  127.)  (4.)  Tlie  inscriptions  found  in  the 
Catacombs  put  the  question  beyotid  dispute,  and  it  is 
clearly  established  that  the  early  Latin  versions  of  the  N. 


152 

T.  were  made  not  for  the  use  of  Rome  but  of  the  provin- 
ces, «,-^peci  ally  Africa.  (Westcott,  Canon,  p.  269.)  Many 
Greeks  were  amonoj  the  retainers  of  the  o;reat  families; 
the  influence  they  were  acquiring  by  their  numbers  and 
versatility  was  a  constant  theme  of  reproach  in  the 
Roman  philosophers  and  satirists.  From  these  the  Gen- 
tile portion  of  the  churcli  was  largely  drawn.  The  names 
of  tlie  Koman  believers  belong  for  tlie  most  part  to  the 
middle  and  lower  grades  of  societ}'.  Added  to  these 
were  a  few  from  the  higher  classes,  e.  g.,  Pomponia 
Graicina,  Clemens,  and  Domitilla,  a  cousin  to  Domitian, 
Occasion  and  object.  Tlie  occasion  is  found  in  the 
Apostle's  long  cherished  and  fixed  desire  to  preach  the 
Gospel  in  person  at  Rome,  for  which  the  epistle  was  to 
be  an  introduction.  (Acts  19 :  21  and  Rom.  1  :  13.)  We 
learn  from  15  :  23-28  that  Spain,  not  Rome,  was  to  be 
the  goal  of  his  travels  to  the  west.  We  infer  from  this 
that  a  lengthened  stay  in  Rome  was  not  part  of  his  plan 
at  that  time.  Hitherto  Paul's  letters  had  been  occasioned 
by  the  special  wants  of  the  churches.  Of  all  the  epistles, 
the  present  has  least  arisen  out  of  necessity  of  dealing 
with  special  casual  circumstances.  The  view  that  it  was 
occasioned  by  the  Judaizing  spirit  of  the  church  (Baur) 
imports  into  the  epistle  a  specifically  polemical  charac- 
ter, which  it  does  not  possess.  (1.)  It  is  purely  a  treatise 
as  to  his  doctrines,  and  contains  in  general  a  statement  of 
principles,  elicited  before  partially  in  Galatians,  and  par- 
tially in  Corinthians.  ELerein  the  Apostle  sets  forth  his 
doctrine,  in  the  entire  connection  of  its  fundamental 
principles.  In  no  other  letter  has  he  done  this  so  com- 
pletely. Hence  it  is  justly  regarded  as  a  grand  scheme 
of  his  whole  teaching,  in  the  precise  form  which  he  held 
to  be  suitable,  for  its  presentation  to  the  Romans.  The 
actual  dangers  in  the  church  for  the  time  were  more  of  a 
moral  than  doctrinal  character,  yet  the  great  ques- 
tion of  the  day,  the  relation  of  the  Old  Testament  to  the 
New,  pervades  the  epistle  and  gives  historic  connection 
to  the  doctrines  here  presented.  Lightfoot  and  Meyer 
infer  from  its  references  to  the  O,  T.  that  the  Jewish 
teachers  and  influences  were  already  at  work,  and  hence 
it  was  the  aim  of  the  Apostle  to  discuss  the   relation  of 


153 

Cbristinnity  to  JiKhiism.  I>iit  nil  exliihitioii  of  tlio  Gos- 
pel tVoiii  its  very  iiatnre  must  coiitaiii  imikjIi  of  O.  T.  law 
and  tVefjiioiit  roterPiicti  to  Judaism.  WIh.mi  tlio  Apostle 
would  jtiovo  that  all  ai'e  simiers,  it  is  done  iirst  l)y  proving 
tlio  Gentiles  and  then  the  Jews  to  be  such.  The  same  fiith 
is  neeessary  tor  both,  and  tiMie  faith  is  illnstiMted  by  that 
of  Abraham.  In  iinfcldinLC  the  doctrine  of  sanetifie  ition, 
the  exhibition  of  the  pnr|)>so  and  use  of  the  law  wis 
necessarily  involved.  Paul  havin<r  before  <liseii.-!sed  sal- 
vation by  i^raee,  as  compared  v/ith  salvation  tluMU^'h 
the  law,  in  chapters  9-11,  applies  his  conebisions  to 
God's  pnr[)<t3e  and  (JL-alini^s  with  the  Jews,  This  is  the 
classical  passaire  in  the  .fiidaistie  controversy.  Ilei-e  the 
conflict  cnlminates.  In  the  next  jjjronp  of  epistles,  errors 
are  of  a  different  chara(rter.  (2.)  Others  hold  that  this 
ci)istle  was  directed  a<»;ainst  .lewish  arroirance,  which,  in. 
{issiinied  superiority,  demanded  the  circnmcisioii  of  the 
Gentiles  and  their  submission  to  the  rites  of  Judaism. 
Accordiuijiy  tiic  Apostle  shows  that  sin  is  universal,  and 
therefore  there  is  no  diti'erence  betw>'en  Jew  and  Gentile. 
(3.)  Others  say  it  was  to  conciliate  the  two,  to  counteract 
and  obviate  misunderstandiu^j^s  between  Jewisii  ami  Gen- 
tile Christians.  Xo  references  in  the  epistle  to  actual 
circumstances  that  would  justify  such  special  delinition 
of  its  object.  (4.)  Baur  regards  it  as  an  ari^nment  with 
Judaizing  Christianity,  which  he  says  was  then  dominant 
in  Ivonie.  The  latter  assertion  is  unbistorical,  and  the 
epistle  is  not  controversial.  In  no  other  I'aul  ne  epistle 
is  the  polemical  element  so  much  in  the  background. 
(o.)  Hoffman  and  Schott  make  the  epistle  personally 
apologetic  in  design,  assuming  it  to  be  a  matter  of  sur- 
prise that  hitherto,  he  had  kept  aloof  from  the  world's 
ca|iital.  It  might  seem  as  it'  the  church  that  had  arisen 
without  bis  ai(J,  had  no  interest  for  him,  or  as  though  he 
were  afraid  to  proclaim  the  message  of  salvation  in  the 
centre  of  Gentile  culture.  Against  this  l*aul  sets  forth 
what  in  his  view  the  message  of  salvation  was,  hoping 
thus  to  g:iin  the  church  of  Rome,  as  u  point  of  support 
for  bis  ministry  in  the  fai'thest  west.  But  this  assumes 
an  object  and  design  not  expressed  in  the  epistle. 

T\\Q  r/enidnencss  of  clis.  XV.  and  XVI.  has  i)een  called 
in  question  on  the  following  grounds: — (1.)   We  find   a 


154 


doxoloijy  at  the  end  of  the  fifteenth  chapter.  Tills  18 
probahly  due  to  the  circMdation  of  the  ei)istle  in  early 
times  wi  I  ho  lit  thepcrsoiial  sahitatioiis.  (2.)  The  <rroetin«:;3 
are  umisiiai  in  iimiiher  lor  a-  cluirrh  in  which  Paul  was 
personally  a  stranger,  and  include  relations  and  old 
friends  of  the  Ajtostle.  But  liome  was  the  i^i-eat  rendez- 
vous. iMoreover  the  [)assaii:;e  (1(5 :  17,  18)  harmonizes  well 
with  what  wo  ma^-  inter  from  the  epistle  itself  in  refer- 
ence to  the  state  of  the  Koman  church,  and  a<i;rce8  ]>er- 
fecily  with  the  fourteenth  chapter.  The  ohjection  that 
6o  many  Greek  names  are  nscil  falls,  with  the  estahlisli- 
nient  of  the  Greek  composition  of  the  church.  Some 
say  that  these  cha[»ters  were  orii^inally  separate  from 
the  letter — either  as  an  introduction  and  directions  to 
the  bearer,  (Semler)  or,  with  Ncander — Paul  was  pre- 
vented when  he  luid  finished  the  fourteenth  chapter  from 
continuing;'  the  epistle  to  the  close — and  on  resuminpr  felt 
liiinself  imi»elled  to  add  somethiiiij^  on  the  theme  last 
treated,  seeking  on  the  one  hand  to  check  the  free  Gen- 
tile Christians  tVom  self-e.\altation.  and  to  remind  the 
Jewish  Chi  istians  that  the  |iarticipatiou  of  the  Gentile 
Christians  in  the  kingdom  of  God  was  not  an  infringe- 
ment on  the  rights  of  the  Jewish  people,  Baiir  says  the 
last  two  chajiters  belong  to  a  l?auline-  writer,  "  who  in 
the  spirit  of  the  author  of  the  book  of  Acts,  wishes  to 
oppose  to  the  sliar[»  anti-Judaism  of  the  Ai)ostle,  a  soft- 
ening and  siiothing  counter[)rise  in  favor  of  the  Judaists 
and  in  the  interests  of  unity.  Some  W.  and  MSS.,  and 
Fathers  introduce  the  doxology  of  the  16th  ch.  between 
the  14th  and  15th  chapters — probably  foi*  the  reason 
above  stated — the  use  of  the  didactic  p(n-tion  alone. 
The  external  evidence  |n'oves  the  L'enuineness  of  the  last 
two  chapters.  "  Ske[»tical  notions  concerning  them 
remain  the  exclusive  pro[»ertv  of  their  originators." — 
Alford. 

Analysis. 
[From  Oxford  "  Teachers'  Bible."] 
I.  Sinfulness  of  the  human  race. 

(a)  Of  the  heathen,  (ch.  I.) 

(b)  Of  Jews,  (II.) 

(c)  Comparison  of  Jews  and  Gentiles,  (III.  :  1-20.) 


155 

II.  rinn  of  snlvation  explaiiieil. 
(i.)  In  Tlieorv,  (HI.  :  20-80.) 
(I.)  By  Ilhislialion,  (IV.-V.) 

III.  Its  viilno. 

(ii)  Union  witli  C-hrist,  (VI.) 
(I))  A.-*  Servants  of  Christ,  (VI.) 
(u)  Sniiitlyinu'  defects  of  the  Law. 

IV.  Jiistitiealion  Ity  Faith. 

(a)  Christian  (liity  and  privilei^e,  VIII. 

(Ij)  Cause  of  rejection  lA'  some — eleetion  of  others, 

Al)raharn\s  Seed,  IX. 
(e)  Blindness  and  linal  rejection  of  Jews,  (X,  XL) 
V.  Bevelopnieiit  of  Trnlh,  XII-XV. 
VI.    [V'i'sonal  Conininnieations,  XVI. 

Commentaries:  Ciialmers,  llalduiie,  D.  B'-own.  J. 
Brown,  Jowett,  Stuart,  lIody;e,  Tholuek,  Article  Smith's 
Diet"y,  Lightfoot,  Lange,  Meyer. 

THIRD  GROUP. 
Period  V.     Acts  xxi  :  38 — xxvin.     Paul  a  Prisoner, 

Epiiesians,  Colossians,  Philemon, Philippians.  (Acts 
XX.)  After  spending  three  months  in  Aehaia,  Paul 
leaves  Greece,  wilh  the  sums  of  money  collected  for  the 
church  at  Jerusalem.  He  pi'oposcd  at  first  to  go  by  sea 
into  Syria,  l)ut  being  made  aware  of  the  purjiose  of  the 
Jews  to  destroy  liim,he  changed  his  jilan  of  Journey  and 
returned  through  Maceihinia  (v.  3.)  He  takes  with  hiin 
seven  representatives  from  the  churches  of  Gentile 
Cliristiaiis  in  Asia  and  Europe,  (v,  4.  See  also  1  Cor.  16  : 
3,  4.)  Luke  accompanied  Paul  from  Philippi,  and  at 
Troas  they  Join  their  companions  who  had  gone  before 
by  sea  (v.  5.) 

Discourse  at  Miletus.  At  Miletus  Paul  sent  for  the 
elders  of  the  Church  at  Ephesiis,  and  delivered  to  thorn 
the  address  recorded  in  vs.  18-35.  Ch.  XXf.  Thence 
to  Cresarea,  thence  to  Jerusalem.  He  visits  James,  (v. 
18.)  Advice  of  James.  Paul  relates  the  success  of  tlio 
gospel  anuuig  the  Gentiles.  In  view  of  a  report  that  he 
had  taught  the  Gentiles  to  forsake  the  law  of  Moses,  he 
is  advised  to  jiut  himself  under  vow  with  four  Nazarites, 
and  to  suii[)ly  the   cost  of  their  ofleringa,  (vs.   23-24.) 


156 

Pnnl's  arrest  and  rescue.  TTis  perform  ince  of  the  vow 
did  not  sMtisifv  the  Jews,  and  lie  isjirrested  on  the  ehar<?e 
of  brin_<,nnii:  Greeks  into  the  temple,  (vs.  28-29.)  Res- 
cued by  the  l»()man  captain  and  pnt  into  the  castle  of 
Antonia. 

I/iike's  live  apoloo;ies.  (1)  Before  the  Mnltitnde,  ch. 
XXil.  (2)  Before  the  Sanhedrim,  ch.  XXIH.  (8^  Be- 
fore Feli.v,  ch.  XXIV.  (4)  Before  Festns,  ch.  XXV. 
(5)  Before  A.ij:rip[»a,  ch.  XXV^f.  After  arrcist  lie  was  two 
years  i>risoiier  at  Cfiesarea.  Jonmey  to  Rome  in  the 
winter.  Two  years  in  lunne.  A  prisoner  from  A.  D. 
69-G'^.  Ai>(»lo<^ies  very  full.  Why  so  full?  Some  say 
that  Ltike  was  present.  Bnt  in  relation  to  history  these 
apologies  are  the  final  sienes  in  controversy  with  Jmhi- 
izers.  i'ani  re-asserts  his  anthority  from  Clirist,  his 
innocence  toward  the  law,  his  doctrine  of  Christ  and  the 
Kesnri-ection  ;  (see  Bei'iiard's  Progress  of  Doctrine,  Lec- 
tni'e  II.)  Epistles  of  this  gronp  contain  distinct  allu- 
sions To  his  condition  at  LJome.  Where  written  ?  Si>me 
say  all  written  in  Cfiesarea.  Uniform  tradition  shows  all 
to  have  been  written  at  Rome.  (1.)  The  corresjiondence 
between  Acts  and  ei)istles  as  to  his  confinement  at  Rome. 
(2.)  The  distinct  forms  of  iiom  ni  imprisonment,  (a) 
Ctistod/fi.  paltlica  w'iiA  l\\iHi()u\\\\o\\  prison,  (  W)  7'Af;  Cii><foi/ki 
libera  was  the  lightest  form  of  imnishment,  might  have 
nuicli  liberty.  Some  snppose  that  this  was  the  mode  of 
Paid's  impiisonment.  Oiijection  :  1.  This  form  of  de- 
tention accorded  only  to  men  of  highest  rank,  2.  Panl 
refers  to  chains  and  soldiers,  (c)  Cuf^toilln  3tiU.I<n-is, 
This  was  Paul's,  Confined  by  a  single  chain.  Degree 
of  i)nnishnient  propoi-tioned  to  rank,  and  the  character 
of  the  crime.  'J'aeitus  and  Horace  mention  cases  of  pun- 
ishment with  chains.  In  Cjiesarea  he  was  handed  over 
to  the  Ceiitnru)!!,  and  friends  were  allowed  to  visit  and 
serve  him,  ch.  XXIV:  23.  lie  was  confined  in  the 
Praetorinm,  which  was  the  residence  of  the  governor  and 
barriicks  of  the  guard.  That  Paid  was  kept  bound  is 
evident  from  fact  that  he  was  bound  when  Feli.^c  trans- 
ferred him  to  Festns. 

At  Rome,  Law  of  a]>peal,  Panl  as  a  Roman  citizen 
couli  stay  further  proceedings  before  the  Governor  by 


157 

appcnli'iir  iiiito '"'•T'^nr  ;  ;ui(l  tlii^  luMlid.  (Ch.  XXV.  11.) 
The  V()vnii:i>.  ITo  is<;iveii  in  clniriiu  of  Julius,  coiitiirioii 
of  Aiiirtistiis'  l);ni(l,  who  trentod  him  coiirteon^ly  siiid 
allowed  hini  nioie  liherty,  (Ch.  XXVII.  3.)  His  triid 
before  A<rri|'l>:>  had  ])roved  his  imioceiiec.  (Ch.  XXV. 
31-2.)  Fiivonihle  I'epoi't  to  the  Emi»eror.  At  lionie  ho 
\v:is  delivered  to  the  I'riiefectiis  Prjietoris,  (XXVIII.  16.) 
Wieseler  nrirnes  from  the  8iiii;iilar  {azo(/-o-Z')diiy/i]  that 
the  Prefect  was  Biirriis,  he^aiise  ui^iially  two  were  in 
command  and  it  was  only  diirinij^  reiiijn  of  Claiidins  that 
Bnrrns  Afranins  held  the  appointment  as  sole  [nefect. 
After  death  of  Bnrrns,  A.  D.  G2,  two  prefects  are  spoken 
of.  The  conclnsion  is  correct,  hnt  is  not  ]»roved  liy  the 
sin<;nlar,  which  iiniy  as  well  deiu)te  the  one  on  dnty,  or 
nniy  mean  one  of  the  prefects.  (Alex.)  The  clanse, 
bly.azn\'7ai>'/nc  -  -  (TT'iazoTZsodny/j,  is  wantin<2r  in  A.  B.  and 
Vnlirate,  an<l  rcijarded  as  spnrions  by  Mill,  Bengel,  Cries- 
bacli,  Lachmann  and  'i'ischcndorf.  Greater  liberty  uiveii 
to  I'anI  at  Koine,  allowed  to  dwell  by  himself.  (28:16.) 
V.  28  si:;  77^1^  ^zi^tuv,  i.  c.  in  a  hotel,  or  he  was  a  gnest  in 
a  jn-ivate  house.  (Sec  ]\om.  16  :  23.  Philemon  22,)  or 
same  as  hired  Innise,  (v.  30.)  J'reached  to  ail  who  came 
to  him,  some  think  him  to  jiave  been  released  from  cap- 
tivity, hnt  he  was  boniid,  for  he  had  to  send  for  the  people, 
(vs.  17-20.)  Here  Acts  close?;  no  reason  to  l)clieve 
that  I'anl's  case  wa'^  tried  in  these  two  years.  (Lightfoot,) 
Lnke  two  years  implies  chniii^e,  (v.  30.)  Some  say  that 
Acts  closes  abruptly.  Bnt  no  more  al)rnptiy  than  the 
close  of  the  Gospels.  (See  LnKe  24  :  .02-3,  nse  of  parti- 
cipial constrnction.)  The  plan  ends  with  Paul's  snccesa 
in  Ivome.  No  improbability  that  this  time  was  sj>ent 
without  trial.  The  law  allowed  time  for  caHin<;  witnes- 
ses. May  Inive  been  dcla^eil  by  caprice  of  Emperor. 
(See  Conybearo  and  Ilowsim,  ))-  376.)  Panl's  arrival  at 
Kome  in  advance  of  his  accusers.  MissicMi  of  Onesimns. 
(I'hilemon  1:10-12.  Conybeare  and  Ilowson,  ]j.  380.) 
That  the  fonr  letters  from  captivity  were  written  by  PanI 
is  evident  from  his  frecpient  references  to  himself,  (Eph. 
3:1.  Col.  1  :23-4.  Phil.  1:7.  PhilcMn.  9.)  Ephesians, 
Colossians,  Philemon  writt<Mi  and  sent  at  the  same  time 
inferred  from  similarity  of  condition  of  Paul  in  each, 


158 

(Eph.  G  :  19-20 ;  Col.  4:8;  riiilem.  10.)  Sent  to  nciirh- 
boriiig  cities  in  Asia.  Eph  and  Col.  sent  by  Tvcliicns, 
and  also  addilional  iiitbnnatioii,  (Col.  4:  7-8.)  Oiiesimtia, 
who  took  Philemon,  took  also  Colossiaus.  C(d.  and  Phil- 
ciHon  coiiiiceted  by  the  coiiiiuoii  uarues  Timothy,  Epa[>h- 
ras,  itc. 

Tune  and  -place.  Some  8ny  a'l  from  Cresarea,  even 
Timothy.  Meyer, Roiiss,  Thierscii,  tirst  three  tVom  CiB-ia- 
rea,  and  the  rest  from  Rome.  But  tmitorm  tradition 
says  all  were  from  Rome.  Meyer  says  Ci^sarea,  for  Onesi- 
mus  would  escape  to  CiXi.sarea.  Only  reason  for  mention- 
ing Onesimns  in  Colossians  was  that  I'hilemon  his  master 
lived  in  Colossjm.  Tvcliicns  from  Rome  would  reach  Eph- 
Gsustirst,  but  he  was  recommended  only  to  Colossne.  (Eph. 
G  :  21.)  "  Ye  also"  imjilies  that  he  went  to  Colossre  first. 
(Phil.  22.)  Paul  desires  Piiilemon  to  ])ri'pare  lod<;in<j:;s, 
but  had  appealed  to  Cresar  and  expected  to  go  to  Rome, 
and  Philemon  (2  :  2-4)  had  relincpiished  his  journey  to 
Spain.  The  great  majority  say  they  wci-e  written  from 
Rome.  1.  Lukesays  Paul  had  liberty  at  Rome;  at  Ca?v«u- 
rca.  Statements  of  epistles  agree  better  with  this  condi- 
tion, (So  Eph.  6  :  19,  20  ;)  (Col.  4  :  3;)  (Philem.  10.)  2. 
A  large  number  of  disci |iles  and  IViends  agrees  better 
with  the  central  position  of  Rome  than  of  Cresarea.  8. 
(Acts  20.)  He  had  lately  taken  leave  of  Asia  at  Miletus 
just  before  his  imprisonment  at  CiBsarea,  and  had  spoken 
of  false  teachers  in  future, .vs.  29,  30.  The  burden  of 
ejiistles  to  write  of  errors  already  existing.  4.  Tacitus 
—  Laodicea,  Colosspe,  Ilierapolis,  destroyed  by  earth- 
quake A.  D.  60.  Laodicea  grew  np  by  its  own  energy. 
Paul  reached  Rome  A.  D.  61.  Letter  written  after  the 
restoration,  because  does  not  allude  to  it.  Order  of 
writiritr — nothing  positive.  Colossians  and  Ephesians 
admitted  to  be  a  pair.  Some  identity  Eph.  with  letter 
sent  to  Laodicea. 

Paul's  Epistle  to  the  Epiiesians.  (1:1.)  "  ^^ 
^E(pi(T(o."  Some  MSS.  omit  this  introduction,  but  much 
authority  in  its  favor.  Doubt  is  occasioned  b^'  the  fact 
the  two  oldest  omit  it:  Vat.,  Sin.  Some  have  it  oidy  in 
margin — contained  in  all  versions.  Objected,  however, 
from  Basil's  statement  that  it  was  not  in  the  copy  which 


159 

lio  used.  Fathers  knew  the  question  to  be  in  donht. 
Absence  of  sahitations  is  the  ijcencral  chai-neteristic  of 
this  epistle.  As  to  internal  ai\<;iinients,  the  Fathers  con- 
sented that  the  epistle  was  meant  for  the  Ephesian 
church.  PauTs  u.-,a<,re  was  such,  (Rom.  1  :  7  ;  Phil.  1:1; 
1  Cor.  1:2;  2  C-or.  1  :  1.)  The  sentence  wnnhl  be  unnat- 
ural without  the  words.  Ooincidence  between  the  epis- 
tle and  his  address  Acts  20,  where  he  commends  them. 
Acts  20:22 — '"dzoiivju^  iv  -vvjii.fj-cy  In  Eph.  he  calls 
himseir  a  ))risoner.  (Acts  20  :  27.)  "I  have  not  shunned 
to  declare  unto  von  the  whole  counsel  of  God."  (lOi)h. 
6  :  20 ;  Acts  20  :  28.)  ''Church  which  he  [jurchased  with 
his  own  biood."  (Eph.  1  :  14.)  Objections.  1.  No 
greetings  or  local  allusions  to  individuals.  Ans.  :  Subj: 
ject  of  epistle  is  <;eneral.  But  why  not  add  messaixcs  ? 
Paul's  habit.  Many  mossaires  in  epistle  to  Romans,  yet  he 
was  never  there,  hence  absence  does  not  i)rove  anythiniij. 
2.  Paid  must  have  known  of  conversions  in  Ephesiaii 
church  only  by  rep(M't.  But  this  is  foi-ced.  "  If  you 
liavc  heard"  implies  no  contradiction.  3.  Paul  addresses 
them  as  Gentiles,  whereas  Irom  Acts  we  learn  they 
were  both  Jews  and  Gentiles-writes  with  Gentiles  in  nnnd. 
Any  other  church  than  that  at  Ephesus  lial)Ie  t<>  strong 
objections.  Some,  after  Marcion,  say  it  is  e])istle  to  Laodi- 
ceans.  (Liiihtfoot.)  (Col.  4  :  16.)  Ai^ain,  a  circular  letter 
for  all  the  neii^hboringchurches.  In  some  MSS.  the  i)lace 
ft)i"  the  name  is  blank.  Why  no  other  name  ?  Common 
opinion  in  favor  of  common  te.xt.  Accounts  for  ji^eneral 
tone  of  e[)istle,  (E[)h.  1  :  15.)  G  :  22  indicates  u  particular 
churcii. 

Aathentmt;/  atUickeil.  De  Wette,  Baur,  Davidson.  I. 
Verbose  expansion  of  Colossians,  (Epl).  1:  10;  Col.  1  : 
20;  E[)h.  1:  21;  Col.  1:  1(5);  ex|iressions  borrowed, 
(a)  GccuiM'ence  oi  similar  words  and  jihrases.  (b)  Iden- 
tical expressions,  (cr)  Same  expression  diiiers.  (d)  Same 
to]iic.  (e)  And  difl'ereut  tojtics  following  in  same  suc- 
cession. Inference  one  or  i)oth  spurious.  (E[d).  3  :  9; 
Col.  1  :  21).)  (Eph.  4:16;  Col.  1 :  10  :  2  :  19.)  (Eph.  4: 
17;  Col.  3  :  8-9.)  Conclusion  however  forced.  (1.)  Their, 
resemblance  casual,  and  not  chief  characteristics  of  epis- 
tles.    Each  has  unit}'  and  force  of  its  own.     (2.)  Ditler- 


160 


enecs  between  the  epistles  far  more  chnrnoteri^tic  than 
resenililiiiices.  Similarity  acc-niinted  for  Ity  clmrclies 
beiiis:  in  same  condition.  Difi'orence  of  intention  of 
epistles.  Epiiesians,  doctrinal,  i.  e.,  not  in  polemic  ft>rm 
of  warning,  but  in  form  of  statement  of  doctrinal  trnth, 
Avbich  had  been  attacked.  Colossians  pi-actical  and 
polemical  vs.  ijnosticisni ;  Colossians  aimed  aijainst  cer- 
tain false  teachers  and  is  fonnd  to  be  clii'isroloirical. 
Christ  head  of  the  church;  Ephesians  ecclcsi(»loi::ical, 
cl)ni'ch  in  Christ.  Succession  of  subjects  ditfcrent  ;  one  is 
not  the  expansion  of  the  other  because  sometimes  reverse. 
Unit}-  of  each  e.\[)laiued  by  their  liavinLf  been  written  at 
the  same  time,  in  same  state  of  mind,  and  to  cliurdies  in 
same  condition,  want  of  analogy  with  Paul's  other  let- 
ters is  De  Wette's  objection.  With  Baur  the  want  of 
unifVnni  style,  weak  iccnrrinoj  of  same  thoujxhts  un- 
■\v(n'thy  of  much  consideration.  IT.  Unpauline  expres- 
sions; reference  to  demons,  doctrine  of  Justification  ; 
(Eph.  2  :  8,  10.)  Faith  and  love  on  sanie  level.  Passaije 
quoted  not  in  0.  T.  (5  :  14.)  III.  Style  said  to  be  turirid, 
no  definite  object,  obscure  con(.'eptions.  DUierences  fi-om 
circumstances  and  subject.  Forgery.  But  why  should 
forirer  confine  liimself  to  a  single  epistle  ?  Why  not  take 
pains  to  make  Paul  apjtear  plainly  as  having  written  to 
Ejihesus?  Why  omit  personal  allusions  to  Patd's  life  at 
Ephesus  ?  Motive  to  promote  unit}-  inadeqmite.  Moral 
responsibility  of  forgery  denied.  With  respect  to  the 
ejiistle  external  testimony  ur.animons  and  full.  Eei-eived 
by  early  church  as  St.  Paul's  e[)istle,  and  quoted  as  such 
bv  l*olvcarp  and  Irena^us.  (C<mybearc  and  llowson,  p. 
399  )  "irenfeus  says  "  As  blessed  Pau-|  saith."'  Argu- 
ment from  gnostic  allusions  more  full  under  Colossians. 
Oltjcct  and  character.  The  visit  of  Tychicus  to  Colossre 
afforded  opportunity  of  sending  ei)is|h\  Distincti<m9 
between  letters  of  second  group  which  were  from  east  to 
west,  and  third  group  from  west  to  east.  Former, 
anthropology  and  soteriology  ;  latter  embraced  christol- 
Oiry  and  union  with  Christ,  afterward  carried  on  by  John. 
The  letters  corresponded  with  the  doctrinal  work  of  west 
and  east.  Hence  external,  historical  reason  for  differ- 
ence in  style.     First  opponents  were  Jews  and  Judaizers. 


161 

Hence  first  letters  settle  legal  relations.  Later  opponents, 
men  of  cnltivated  and  pliiloso[)iiieal  minds.  Problems 
of  Pliilosoph}'  same  as  those  of  Revelation.  Internal 
reason  i'or  ditferenee  of  style  fonnd  in  the  development 
of  the  faith  of  the  chnrch.  First,  Anthropology,  then 
Soteriology,  then  Christology.  Redemption  is  l>ased  on 
Christology.  There  is  a  constant  increasing  clearness  in 
Paul  on  this  snbject.  Contrast  Paul  and  John.  The 
general  character  of  the  letter  does  not  exclude  unex- 
pressed intention  to  state  the  truths  which  exclude  these 
errors.  Redemption  by  eternal  purpose,  by  grace, 
througl)  Christ,  who  unites  all  in  a  spiritual  body  a  tem- 
ple of  God. 

Analysis  of  Epistle  to  the  Epiiesians.  > 

(Taken  from  Dr.  Braune,  Lange's  commentary.) 
Address  and  Salutation  (I.  1,  2.) 
1  'a  rt  first  :   Thefilory  of  the  Church  of  Christ.  (I.  3 — III.  21.) 

A.  The  f/roioid  and  f/oal  of  the  church.     (I.  3-23.) 

(a)  Grateful  praise  of  the  decree  of  grace.  (I.  3-14.) 

(b)  Exhortation  springing  out  of  tlie  Apostle's 
supplication  for  tlie  churcli  as  the  Body  of 
Ciirist,  who  is  the  head.  Thanksgiving  and 
petition.     (I.  15-23.) 

B.  The  extent  and  mission  of  the  clairch.     (II.) 

(a)  Reminder  of  the  previous  condition  of  deatli, 
and  the  glorious  new  creation.     (II.   1-10.) 

(b)  Extolling  comparison  of  the  previous  and  pres- 
ent condition.     (II.  11-22.) 

C.  Tlie  office  ami  service  of  the  church.     (Ill,  1-21.) 

(a)  The  office  in  and  for  the  church.     (III.  1-13.) 

(b)  The  Apostle's  petition,  with  an  exliortation  for 
the  church.     (II.  11-22.) 

(c)  Conclusion  in  form  of  a  Doxology.  (III.  20-21.) 
Part  second  :    TJt'c  spirit  ruling   in   the   church   of   Christ. 

(IV.  1— VI.  20.) 
A.    Theme  of  the  whole  pari  (IV.  1-3)  :    Wal/c  loorthy 

of  the  calling  in  love  and  unity. 
H.    Three  motives  to  the  2)t'('''^c>'vation  of  the  unify  in  the 
spirit.     (IV.  4-16.) 
(a)  The  working  of  the  Triune  God  in  the  church. 
(IV.  6.) 


162 

(b)  The  gift  of  Christ  to  individuals.     (IV.  7-10.) 

(c)  The  organization  and  organism  of  the  church. 
(IV.  11-16.) 

C.  General  Christian  duties.     (IV.  17— V.  21.) 

(a)  Principle  of  the  new  walk  with  reference  to  the 
antitheses  of  the  old  and  the  new  man.  (IV. 
17-24.) 

(b)  Special  traits  of  the  new  walk.     (IV.  25-32.) 

(c)  Threepointsof  view  for  the  new  walk.  (V.  1-14.) 

CI.  Look  above  Thyself,  (vers.  1-2.) 
^  2.  Look  into  Thjself,  (vers.  3-5.) 
(3.  Look  about  Thyself;  (vers.  6-14.) 

(d)  Exhortation  to  walk  with  careful  consideration 
of  the  Christian  position.     (V.  15-21.) 

D.  Special  Christian  duties  in  domestic  relations.     (V. 
22— VI  9.) 

(a)  Wives  and  husbands.  (V.  22-23);  (b)  Chil- 
dren and  parents.  (VI.  1-14);  (c)  Servants 
and  Masters.     (VL  5-9.) 

E.  Concluding  exhortation.     (VL  10-20.) 
Close  of  the  Epistle.     (VI.  21-24.) 

r  A.  Personal  intelligence  from  Paul.  (vers.  21-23.) 
\  B.  Two-fold  salutation,  (vers.  23-24.) 

(a)  Peace,  love,   faith  among  them,     (b)  Grace 
upon  and  with  them. 

Paul's  Epistle  to  the  Colossians.  Colosspe  ;  a  city 
of  Great  Phrygia  on  the  river  Lycus.  Once  of  great 
importance.  In  middle  ages  called  Xcovac  and  hence  the 
modern  name  of  the  village  on  its  site,  Chouas.  Epistle 
to  Colossians,  an  instance  of  a  letter  addressed  by  Paul 
to  a  church  he  had  not  founded,  (Col.  2  :  1.)  Assumed 
that  Paul  had  never  been  there.  Paul  twice  in  Phrygia. 
(Acts  16:  6;  18:  23.)  Epaphras  probably  the  true 
founder.  (Col.  1 :  6,  7 ;  4 :  12.)  Grotius  thinks  that 
Epaphras  was  same  as  Epaphroditus.  (Phil.  2:  25.) 
Tradition  says  he  was  the  first  bishop,  and  martyred. 

Condition  of  the  church.  Epaphras  brought  favorable 
news.  (1:8.)  But  there  were  errors  in  vogue  against 
which  Paul  instructed  them,  (ch.  2.)  This  was  predicted 
in  address  at  Miletus  (Acts  20  :  29,  30.)  His  anxiety  was 
now  increased  (1:  9.)     Errorists  of  Colossse.    TheJudaiz- 


163 

ing  party  of  Galilee  separated  in  second  century,  as 
Ehioiiites  ;  they  held  perpetuity  of  the  law,  also  the 
doctrine  of  circntncision.  They  opposed  tiie  epistles  of 
Paul.  They  held  Jesus  to  be  only  a  human  prophet, 
taught  by  a  divine  spirit  at  buptisni,  and  Millenarianism. 
Must  be  distinguished  from  Nazartiiies,  who  were  descend- 
ants of  Jewish  Christians  under  James,  remnants  of  the 
church  of  Palestine  until  the  sixth  century.  Gnosticism. 
Opposite  form  of  error  in  New  Test.  Not  developed 
into  heresy  until  second  century.  An  attempt  so  to 
assimilate  Christianity  and  philosophy  as  to  form  unity. 
Origin  not  referred  to  any  one  school.  Fanatical  and 
mystical  spirit  showed  to  be  more  closely  related  to  east 
than  west.  The  decay  of  original  schools  gave  way  to 
eclecticism.  Especially  Neoplatonism,  which  rejecteii 
both  Judaism  and  Christianity.  Two  prominent  features, 
striving  for  higher  knowledge  of  tilings  ;  and  asceticism. 
The  body  must  be  ignored.  True  morality  consists  in 
physical  freedom  from  e.vternal  objects.  Gnosticism  in- 
cluded. 1.  Concerning  God,  an  absolute  impersonal 
being.  The  sum  of  all  existence  absolutely  in  Ilim.  2. 
Doctrine  of  emanations.  The  development  of  powers 
or  attributes  of  the  Infinite,  called  JEons.  All  these 
emanations  constitute  the  pleroma,  in  which  God  mani- 
fests Himself.  3.  Dualism,  the  external  and  material 
world  cannot  come  from  God,  being  evil.  Matter  inher- 
ently evil  and  at  war  with  the  principle  of  life.  Lives 
only  by  union  with  the  pleroma.  The  connection  be- 
tween these  opposing  principles,  God  and  matter,  formed 
hj  the  last  ^on  in  the  procession  descending  in  grade. 
4.  The  Demiurge,  ruler  of  the  natural  world,  who  created 
it  by  combining  the  contradictory  elements  of  spirit  and 
matter,  5.  Redemption  consists  in  the  return  of  the 
spirit  to  God  from  its  bondage  to  matter.  This  is 
effected  by  Christ.  He  descends  and  assumes  the  form 
of  man.  The  Logos  has  only  transient  union  with  mat- 
ter. This  union  communicates  the  true  spirit  to  men. 
6.  Ethics  based  on  physical  system.  Freedom  from  mat- 
ter is  the  liighest  moral  good,  since  matter  is  evil  in  itself. 
This  leads  to  two  opposing  errors,  asceticism  and  liber- 
tinism.    Term  gnosticism  used  of  New  Testament  errors 


164 

in  the  sense  that  they  embodied  or  involved  its  principles. 
Some  features  of  gnosticism  are  wanting  in  New  Test. 
Opposite  tendencies  mingled  opinions  of  philosophy  with 
the  prejudices  of  Judaism.  Errors  rebuked  in  the  epistle. 
Claim  of  a  gnosis,  or  philosoi)hia,  as  opposed  to  revela- 
tion. (Col.  1^:  9 ;  21 :  2-8  ;  1 :  23-6.)  Effect  of  heathen  phil- 
osophy is  pride  (2:18),  as  contrasted  with  Christian 
knowledge  (2  :  2.)  2.  As  to  God  and  his  relations  to 
the  world,  Paul  guards  against  the  doctrine  that  God  is 
unknowable,  (2  :  2  ;  1 :  10,)  insisting  on  increase  of  the 
knowledge  of  God.  Proves  the  person  of  God  by  declar- 
ing that  the  world  was  created  by  flim.  (1  :  16.)  Holds 
Hi"m  up  as  the  Father  of  His  people.  (1  :  14 ;  19 ;  27  ;  11.) 
3.  Doctrine  of  emanation.  Opposed  by  the  doctrine  of 
creation.  This  is  seen  from  direct  reference  to  existing 
order  of  spiritual  beings  in  their  order  as  held  by  the 
philosophers.  (1 :  16.)  Attributed  to  them  the  worship 
of  angels  (2  :  18.)  Some  refer  this  worship  of  angels  to 
Jewish  conceptions,  but  such  worship  is  the  reverse  of 
Jewish  practices.  Others  refer  to  this  as  a  practice  cur- 
rent in  Phrj'gia.  At  council  of  Laodicea  worship  of 
angels  was  forbidden.  Still  more  interesting  is  Paul's 
usage  of  the  word  Plerouia.  Pie  never  uses  it  elsewhere 
than  in  Col.  and  Eph.  to  indicate  the  sum  of  spiritual 
beings.     He  applies  it  to   God  and   Christ.  (Col.  1 :  19. 

2  :  9.)     "  It  pleased  "  &c.,  not  in  sons  but  in  Christ.  (Eph. 

3  :  19  ;  4 :  10.)  (See  also  Rom.  15  :  29  ;  1  Cor.  10  :  26-28.) 
The  doctrine  of  the  Demiurge  is  never  distinctly  ascribed 
to  any  of  these  errorists  in  the  the  !N"ew  Test.  4.  Dual- 
ism appears  in  the  principle  of  mortifying  the  body  to 
obtain  a  higher  mode  of  life,  more  than  ceremonial  fast- 
ing and  legal  discipline.  (2:20.)  It  detracts  from  the 
work  of  Christ.  (2  :  13-14.)  Paul  contrasts  with  it  Christ- 
ian morality.  (Ch.  3.)  5.  Jewish  elements.  Reference 
to  circumcision,  (2  :  11,)  to  ceremonials,  (2  :  16,)  to  sepa- 
ration, (3  :  11.)  6.  Christology.  Refutation  of  false  views 
concerning  Christ's  person  occasions  three  principal  pas- 
sages in  the  Roman  letters.  1.  Against  Ebionism,  which 
denies  divinity  of  Christ.  2.  Against  Gnosticism,  which 
denies  His  humanity.  3.  Against  the  Docetre,  who  re- 
gard Christ's  body  only  a  phantasm.     It  is  commonly 


165 

said  that  errorists  among  the  Col.  were  Ebionites  ;  that 
there  was  no  Docetic  element,  and  therefore  Paul  asserts 
tlie  Divinity  ot'  Christ.  But  there  was  also  a  speculative 
element.  Their  philosophical  statements  do  not  so  much 
deny  His  Divinity  as  make  Him  one  among  many  forms 
of  l)ivine  essence.  Christ  is  only  the  image  of  the  invis- 
ible Pleroma  before  creation.  They  denied  His  Head- 
ship (2:18,  19).  Also  His  relation  to  God,  to  the  uni- 
verse, and  to  the  church  (1  :  15-20).  Christ  is  the  divine 
human  [)erson,  redeeming  men  by  atonement  and  uniting 
all  to  him.  7.  Denial  of  His  resurrection  (1 :  18  ;  2  :  12). 
Worshiped  angels.  The  tendency  was  to  degrade  Christ 
and  His  redemptive  work.  (1:20;  2:20,  14).  These 
evidently  were  not  heathen  philosophers  in  general  or  an}- 
school  of  them.  They  are  in  the  churcli  and  of  an  east- 
ern character.  Not  Neo-Platonists,  nor  Christians,  nor 
Jews  leaning  toward  Christianity.  Nor  were  they  Phar- 
isees.—  Stanley.  How  these  parties  arose  in  Asia  Minor 
is  uncertain.  Some  say  they  were  direct  from  Alexan- 
dria. Large  number  of  Alexandrian  Jevvs  had  settled 
here  and  disseminated  their  spirit.  Neander,  Schaff. 
Essenes  were  often  admitted  into  the  Church.  Paul's 
mode  of  procedure  against  errorists  is  interesting — does 
not  attack  them  polemically,  but  states  the  opposite  truths. 
Remarkable  as  being  different  from  his  style  in  Gal.  and 
elsewhere.  Here  no  personal  enmity  against  Paul.  They 
were  regarded  not  as  direct  opponents  to  Christianity, 
but  as  misguided  men.  Interesting  analogy.  Jewish 
portions  of  the  Church,  including  Apostle  Peter  and 
James,  at  first  disagreed  with  Paul,  but  afterward  in  har- 
mony with  him;  at  the  time  of  writing  the  Galatiansall 
were  subjected  to  censure,  but  when  writing  to  the  Col- 
ossians  Paul  is  very  lenient,  uses  stronger  language  in 
the  pastorals. 

Authentic'dy.  Mayerhoff  attacks  it  on  the  usual 
grounds  of  style.  Also  its  similarity  to  Ephesians. 
Epistle  is  charged  with  containing  phrases  and  ideas  de- 
rived from  the  later  heretical  philosophers,  as  Cerinthus, 
which  makes  the  date  later  than  Paul.  Baur's  objections 
against  Ephesians  and  Colossians.  Errors  combated 
were  Ebionistic.     The  source  of  the  letters  was  the  gnos- 


166 

tic  sect.  1.  That  the  Christology  differs  from  Paul's. 
The  epistles  are  not  directly  against  philosophical  tend- 
ency, but  one  product  of  that  philosophy.  The  Christ- 
ology  is  gnostic.  The  leading  idea  of  Christ  is  that  He 
was  a  pre-existent  being  and  His  great  work  was  to  unify 
and  restore  all  things  to  Himself.  The  ideas  all  belong 
to  a  later  period.  2.  That  expressions  occur  everywhere 
which  are  the  watchwords  of  gnostic  speculations,  prin- 
cipalities, and  powers,  thrones,  pleroma.  Great  stress  is 
laid  on  the  idea  that  Christ  is  the  medium  through  which 
God  reveals  Himself.  The  only  difference  is  this  mani- 
festation of  God  in  Christ  as  opjiosed  to  the  gnostic  idea 
of  a  plurality  of  ^Eons.  Palentinus  arranges  these  ^Eons 
in  pairs,  male  and  female,  and  thus  explains  the  relation 
of  Christ  to  the  church  as  His  bride,  (Eph.  1  :  23.)  The 
"  manifold  wisdom"  said  to  be  emendations,  (Eph.  4  :  10.) 
Mystery,  wisdom,  knowledge,  light  and  darkness — the 
zEon  of  this  world,  world  rules,  &c.  So  also  Montanism 
is  taken  to  be  the  source  of  the  doctrine  of  Holy  Spirit ; 
also  that  prophecy  was  continued  in  the  church,  (Eph. 
4  :  11.)  Stages  of  growth  of  the  spiritual  in  the  church, 
(4  :  13-14.)  Opposition  to  the  Montanist  view  of  mar- 
riage, (Eph.  5  :  31.)  Held  that  these  facts  indicate  the 
rise  of  the  epistle  after  Montanism.  The  opposing  views 
or  errorists,  are  Ebionitic;  circumcision,  etc.  There  are 
frequent  self-assertions  of  the  author  (3:1,4;  6  :  20  ;  Col. 
1  :  23),  and  allusions  to  gospels  Mark  and  Luke.  Alleged 
that  frequent  assertions  concerning  persecutions  cast 
suspicion  on  the  writer.  Inference  is  that  writings  date 
from  second  century.  Some  say  the  epistle  was  written 
by  Pauline  Christians,  based  on  a  letter  written  by  Paul. 
Hence  they  were  Gnostic  writings  designed  to  harmonize 
Gentile  and  Jewish  Christianity  ;  held  that  the  death  of 
Christ  not  to  atone  but  to  unite  ;  conciliation  to  Judaism 
unpauline  ;  heathen  share  what  the  Jews  before  had. 
Answer:  1.  Exaggeration  of  coincidences  of  language. 
Critics  have  done  utter  violence  to  exegetical  meaning. 
Paul's  terms  have  been  interpreted  from  Gnostic  writings. 
Paul  does  not  use  the  same  words  in  same  sense  with 
Valentinus.  The  ideas  are  not  contrary  to  those  of  his 
other  epistles.     A  logical  advance;  if  written  so  late  as 


167 

alleged  would  be  more  defmite.  2.  WeakiieHS  especially 
seen  in  applying  Montanism  to  the  epistle,  since  it  is 
directly  opposed  to  Gnosticism.  3.  The  errorists  are  not 
simply  Ebionites.  Certain  principles  by  the  2d  century 
had  developed  into  Gnosticism.  These  errors  were  con- 
troverted by  putting  truth  in  the  same  form  to  satisfy 
this  special  tendency.  But  if  not  Gnostic  we  are  at  sea, 
for  no  otlier  error  can  be  discerned.  .  Some  say  that 
errorists  denounced  Gnosticism.  4,  The  conclusion  is 
unfair.  Gnosticism  was  avowedly  borrowed  from  Chris- 
tianity, and  not  Christianity  from  Gnosticism.  The  gen- 
uine precedes  the  counterfeit.  5.  Philosophical  phrases 
used  in  common.  Critics  ignore  external  evidence. 
These  epistles  were  accepted  long  before  the  rest  of  t4ie 
canon.  This  school  utterly  ignored  this  point.  Idea  of 
forgery  is  even  more  incredible  than  the  fact  that  Paul 
wrote  them.  6.  Inspiration  of  epistle  not  accounted  for. 
Not  probable  that  the  clnirch  would  accept  a  forgery. 
(Col.  4  :  16)  "  and  that  ye  likewise  read  the  Cjyistle  from 
Laodicea."  Suggests  question  whether  an  epistle  from 
Laodicea  to  Paul,  or  to  Colossse.  But  an  epistle  of 
Paul's.  There  was  an  epistle  to  be  brought  from  Laodi- 
cea. Some  say  it  was  Ephesians  ;  others  Hebrews  ;  1st 
John;  Philemon.  Epistle  to  Laodicea  now  lost.  Some 
epistles  saved,  others  lost — illustrates  the  formation  of 
the  canon. 

Analysis  of  Epistle  to  the  Colossians. 
(Taken  from  Dr.  Braune,  Lange's  Commentary.) 
I.  Address  and  Salutation,  (1 :  1-2.) 
11.  Part  first  :  Mention  of  the  ground  of  Christian  fellow- 
ship, and  warninr/  against  apostasy,  (1  :  3 — 2  :  23.) 

1.  Tlianks  to  God  for  the  faith  and  love  of  his  read- 
ers from  the  beginning,  (1  :  3-8.) 

2.  Earnest  supi)lication  for  the  progress  of  the  church 
in  true  knowledge,  especially  of  the  Being  and 
work  of  Christ,  (1:  9-23.) 

3.  Joy  of  the  Apostle  in  his  suiierings  and  labors, 
(1:  14-29.) 

4.  Anxiety  of  the  Apostle  lest  tliey  be  led  away 
through  false  wisdom,  (2  :  1-15.) 


168 

5.  Two  special  warnings,  (2:  16-23.) 

j  a.  Against  carnal  legal  service,  (vs.  16-17.) 

\  b.  Against  superstitions  angel  worship,  (vs.  18-19.) 

III.  Part  second  :  Exhortation  to   true  rital  saiictijieaiioii , 

(3  :  1—4  :  6.) 

1.  The  foundation  and  prospect  of  a  genuine  Chris- 
tian sentiment  and  walk,  (3:  1-4.) 

2.  General  exhortations,  (3  :  5-17.) 

(a)  Negatively,  to  put  off  the   carnal    nature,  (3  : 
5-11.) 

(b)  Positively,  to  practice  Christian  affection,  etc., 
(3  :  12-17.) 

3.  Special  exhortations,  (3  :  18 — 4:  1.) 

(a)  To  wives  and  husbands,  (vs.  18-19.) 

(b)  To  children  and  ftithers,  (v.  21.) 

(c)  To  servants  and  masters,  (vs.  22-25 — 4:  1.) 
■4.   Concluding  exhortations,  (4:  2-6,)  in  relation  to 

{Prayer,  (vs.  2-4.) 
Conduct,  (v.  5.) 
Speech,  (v.  6.) 

IV.  Conclusion,  (4  :  7-18.) 

1.  Personal  intelligence,  (vs.  7-9.) 

2.  Salutations  and  Messages,  (vs.  16-17.) 

3.  Closing    words,  (v.  18.)     [Autograph    salutation, 
exhortation  and  benediction.] 

Commentaries  :  Eadie,  Ellicott,  Braune  in   Lange,  Arti- 
cle Smith's  Bible  Dictionary. 

Paul's  Epistle  to  Philemon.  Of  peculiar  interest 
as  referring  to  personal  relations.  Tenderness,  wisdom, 
firmness  in  principle  laid  down.  Philemon  was  a  resi- 
dent of  Colossse  as  appears  from  Col.  4  :  9.  Paul 
speaks  of  Onesimus  as  one  of  them,  and  (Col.  4  :  17),  of 
Philemon.  2nd  mention  made  of  Archippus.  (Home's 
Intro.,  Epistle  to  Philemon).  Converted  under  the  min- 
istry of  Paul,  (19.)  Tradition  says  that  he  was  made 
Bishop  of  Beroea.  Martyred  under  Nero.  Onesimus, 
a  slave  of  Philemon,  who  liad  robbed  his  master  and 
escaped  as  far  as  Rome,  (11.)  Became  a  convert  under 
Paul's  ministry,  during  the  latter's  imprisonment  in 
Rome,  and  sent  back  to  his  master  with  commendation 
from  Paul.     Martyred  at  Rome.     Account  rejected  only 


169 

by  Banr,  becniise  of  nnpnnline  expressions,  and  little 
itniiortance.  Embryo  of  Christian  jioetry.  The  union 
effected  by  Christianity  is  set  forth  by  the  retnrn  of 
Onesimns  to  his  nnistor.  The  epistle  an  example  of  a 
Christian  letter.  Note  Luther's  Introduction,  quoted  in 
Alford's  Grk.  Test.,  p.  115. 

Analysis  of  Epistle  to  Philemon. 

[Taken  from  Van  Oosterzee.] 

I.   Address  and   salutation,  (vs.  1-3.) 
II.  An  expression  of  Cliristian  sym[)atliy  and  recogni- 
tion, (vs.  4-7.) 

III.  (The  proper  kernel  of  the  epistle,)  intercession  for 

Onesinius  and  commendation  of  bin),  (vs.  8-22.) 

IV.  Request    for    a    lodL£in<r,   gi'cetings  of  friends,  and 
l>i-ayer  for  spiritual  blessings,  (vs.  22-25.) 

PniLiPPiANS.  Church  at  Phiiippi  first  one  founded 
by  Paul  in  Europe,  (Acts  16  and  20.) 

Time  and  place  of  icrilivr/  almost  universally  conceded 
to  have  been  at  Rome.  Late  in  his  imprisonment. 
Probably  written  alter  the  close  of  the  Acts.  Another 
opinion  places  it  in  the  first  Roman  imprisonment.  Later 
date  is  better  suited  to  circumstances.  1.  Large  size  and 
irn]»ortance  of  the  church  referi-ed  to.  Paul  writes  as  if 
well  acqmiinted  with  the  church.  2.  Conil)iiiations  of 
companions  with  Paul.  Luke  and  Aristarchus  mention- 
ed in  early  writings  from  Rome,  but  are  not  mentioned 
in  IMiilippians.  3.  We  tin. 1  indicated  tour  journeys  be- 
tween Phiiippi  and  Rome.  l*hilippians  had  heard  of 
I'aul's  imprisonment  in  Rome  and  that  he  was  sick — 
send  Epajihroditus  to  him,  (4:18.)  Then  Paul  sendf? 
Epaphroditus  back  to  the  Ephesians,  (2:25.)  Again 
change  in  Paul's  condition,  greater  constraints  and  anx- 
iety. Really  ex[)ects  release  in  hopes  to  see  his  friends 
at  Phil.,  (2:" 24.)  Lightfoot,  Bleek,  put  it  before  Ephe- 
sians  and  Colossians  on  internal  grounds.  1.  IMiil.  more 
like  the  earlier  epistles,  especially  Romans.  2.  Transi- 
tion in  the  controversy  better  brought  about  by  this 
arrangement.  Pause  in  controvei'sy.  3.  Ei)hesians  and 
Colossians  need  to  be  put  as  late  as  possible  on   account 


170 

of  ditfereiice  in  style  and   subject,  and   brought   near  to 
the  Pastorals. 

O/iJecf  and  Character.  Not  controversial.  Tliere  were 
no  ])ractieal  dangers  against  Avhieh  to  give  warning. 
Paul  replies  to  the  accounts  which  they  sent  to  him  by 
writing  this  letter.  The  great  object  of  the  epistle,  ac- 
cording to  Lightfoot,  is  to  set  fortli  the  power  of  the  Gos- 
pel to  jiroduce  tlie  highest  moral  results,  and  the  closest 
union  among  men.  i'ersonal  relations  indicate<l  in  epis- 
tle illustrated  such  results.  Epaph.  sent  to  Paul  wirli 
aid,  (4  :  18.)  Practical  view  of  life  in  Christ,  (1  :  12-18.) 
Effect  of  Paul's  ministry.  Facts  in  life  of  Paul  deter- 
mined by  this  epistle.  Where  was  he  imprisoned?  In 
Pretorium  or  Palace  of  the  King  ?  Pretorium,  General's 
tent,  or  palace,  (Acts  23:  25.)  Used  as  barracks  by  the 
body  guard  of  the  Empeior.  Local  referent-es,  1.  The 
Fatliers  say  tliat  the  jjlace  was  the  palace  of  the  Emperor 
in  Rome.  Tlien  we  understand  tlie  salutations  from 
Cfesar's  household  at  close  of  the  epistle,  (4  :  22.)  2. 
Common  opinion,  tluit  it  was  the  camp  of  the  Prsetorian 
guard.  When  Paul  was  in  Rome,  he  was  given  into  the 
hands  of  tlie  Prefect  of  the  Pr.Ttorium.  Hired  house 
was,  then,  within  the  camp,  3.  Wieseler  refers  it  to  the 
detachment  of  the  guard  at  the  palace.  4.  EUicott,  the 
whole  quarters  of  the  guard  both  within  and  without  the 
city.  5.  Lightfoot  and  Bleek  give  it  no  local  sense  but 
refer  it  to  the  guard  itself.  Cresar's  houseliold.  The 
greeting  in  4  :  22,  either  (1.)  The  famil}'  or  relations  of 
the  Emperor;  hence  we  infer  that  the  converts  were  of 
high  rank,  or,  (2.)  oiyAa^  refers  to  the  imperial  servants, 
military  and  civil  of  all  sorts ;  no  inference  as  to  raidc. 
ForLightfoot's  coml)inations  see  Lightfoot,  Commentary 
on  Philippians,  p.  170.  If  Paul's  epistle  was  written 
shortly  after  his  arrival  at  Rome  it  would  seemto  follow 
that  the  members  of  Caisar's  liousehold  who  sent  their 
salutations  to  Philippi  were  earlier  converts,  (Lightfoot, 
p.  171.)  Cjfisar's  household  supposed  to  be  the  same 
with  the  list  in  the  epistle  to  Romans,  (Rom.  16.)  They 
are  identiiied  also  witli  insc]'i|)tions  in  Columbaria, 
(Lightfoot,  169.)  Alford  and  Ellicott  from  a  local  sense 
infer  a  change  of  place  in  his  imprisonment,  from  private 


171 

hduse  to  bnrrjicks.  Mej-eraiid  Liiilitfoot  hold  that  as  tlie 
(jiiard  was  chaiisred  he  oonhl  see  in  succession  all  the 
ti()0[is,  and  other  members  of  the  liousehold  had  free 
access  to  his  presence. 

A  division  arose  arnon<i^  tlie  teacliers  at  Home  about 
Paul.  Some  were  stirred  nj)  to  jtreach  Christ  on  ac- 
count of  his  bonds,  others  of  envy  and  strife.  These 
hitter  were  Jiidaizei's.  The  fact  that  Paul  rejoices  (1  : 
18,)  is  conclnsive  that  this  jiarty  had  less  intinence  in 
K(ime  than  elsewhere.  Piiiliiipians  less  erratic  than  the 
Galatians.  The  alternative  here  was  not  i)nre  and  im- 
pure Chi-istianity  bnt  Christianity  and  heathenism.  The 
trial  near  and  issue  uncertain.  This  was  connected  with 
political  chani^^es.  Burrns,  tlie  friend  of  Seneca,  nndtir 
whose  rule  Paul  had  enjoyed  much  freedom  died  in  62 
and  was  succeeded  by  two  prefects,  one  of  whom  was 
Tiijjellinus.  The  same  yeai-  iS'^ero  divorced  his  wile  Pop- 
\)KA.  She  was  claimed  to  be  a  proselyte  to  Judaism. 
Paul's  accusers  would  lie  aided  by  lier.  Li|i:litf()ot  doubts 
the  influence  of  political  chanj^es.  Paul  iiidulij^ed  a  hope 
of  deliverance  (1  :  25  ;  2  :  24.)  Hopes  to  send  Timothv 
to  them  shortly  (2:  23;  1  :  21.) 

Purilii  of  tlie  church  of  Phillppi.  The  epistle  contains 
no  rebuke.  There  are  four  distinct  instances  of  the 
Philippians  making  contributions  to  Paul.  (4:10,15, 
16;  2  Coi.  11  :  9.)  Questit>n  as  to  whether  this  is  same 
as  Phil.  4:15;  4:  10.  And  these  contributions  were 
out  of  their  [loverty,  for  the  i\lace(h)nian  churches  were 
not  wealthy  communities  like  the  church  of  Corinth. 
(See  Conybeare  and  IIi)\vson.  2  p.  123.)  Baur  says  his 
receiving  contributions  contradicts  (1  Cor.  9  :  15.)  But 
this  latter  merely  asserts  the  right  to  receive.  (See  also 
2  Cor.  11:  9.)  Reason  for  purity  of  the  church.  Phi- 
lippi  free  from  lalse  teachers  ;  the  church  was  persecuted 
(1  :  29,  30  :)  (chap.  3,)  speaks  of  Juchiizers  again.  It  is 
commonly  said  that  they  had  no  power  in  Pliilippi. 
They  were  referred  to  as  a  future  evil,  or  the  warning 
was  suggested  by  circumstances  external  to  the  I'hilip- 
pian  church.  Lightfoot  says  that  chap.  3  :  12-18  al- 
ludes to  the  opposite  danger  of  antinomianism  (pp.  67- 
69.)     Special   ditiiculty.     It   is    evident    that'  they  were 


172 

liable  to  pride,  rind  disputes  perhaps  about  social  dis- 
tinctions. (2:  14;  4:  2.)  Paul's  exliort;itions  to  hu- 
mility introduce  the  sjreat  cliristological  passaoje  (2:5- 
16.)  Lightfoot  justly  makes  a  combination  of  the  liis- 
tory  in  the  Acts,  and  the  epistle.  From  prominence 
given  to  women  in  the  conversions  at  Philippi  and  in  the 
persecutions  afterv/ards,  combined  with  the  disputes  be- 
tween Euodias  and  Syntyche  (Phil.  4:  2)  he  concludes 
that  the  position  of  women  in  Macedonia  was  unusually 
high.  This  opinion  is  confirmed  by  Macedonian  inscrip- 
tions. (Lightfoot,  Com.  on  Phil.  p.  55.)  Subsequent  his- 
tory :  Church  at  Philippi  little  known,  not  iDcntioned 
till  early  in  the  second  century,  when  Ignatius,  on  his  way 
to  Rome,  wliere  he  is  condemned  to  sutler  niartyr(h)m, 
passes  tlirough  Philii)pi,  and  is  kindly  entertained  by 
members  of  the  church.  Their  kind  treatment  of  Igna- 
tius gave  rise  to  communications  with  Polycarp  in  which 
the  Philippians  invite  him  to  give  them  some  words  of 
advice.  (Lightfoot,  p.  62.)  Polycari)'s  letter  extant. 
The  See  continued  to  exist  but  had  no  history.  Was 
Clement,  Paul's  fellow  laborer,  (4  :  3,)  the  same  as  Cle- 
ment of  Rome?  Uniform  tradition  attirms  it.  Light- 
foot, Meyer  and  De  Wette  doubt  it.  (See  Lightfoot,  p. 
166.  Notices  of  place  and  time  opposed  to  identification 
of  the  two.  At  tlie  time  of  the  ei)istle  Clement  would 
be  about  25  or  30.  He  is  mentioned  in  the  shepherd  of 
Hernias,  A.  D.,  140  as  alive.  This  does  not  aifect  the 
facts  about  Clement  of  Rome  as  the  friend  of  Peter  and 
Paul.  He  stands  out  as  a  very  prominent  post-apostolic 
figure.  This  question  does  not  affect  the  canonicity  of 
the  epistle.  Alleged  from  (3  :  1,)  ''  same  things,"  tiiat 
there  were  other  letters  to  the  Philipi:)ians,  but  lost. 
Polycarj)  in  a  letter  to  the  Philippians  uses  tiie  plural 
"epistles"  in  speaking  of  Paul's  writing  to  Philippians. 
But  "same  things"  mentioned  in  3:  1,  refers  to  the 
duty  of  rejoicing,  spoken  of  above  in  the  epistle.  Hence 
the  doubt  with  respect  to  the  other  letters. 

Genuineness.  The  ejustle  was  rejected  by  the  earlier 
Tubingen  critics  on  the  ground  of  gnostic  expressions, 
e.  g.  (II,  5-8).  Sophia  made  an  impious  attempt  to  knovv 
God  fully  and  fell — Tiibingen's  explanation  of  2  :  5-8. 


173 


I. 


II. 


But  the  ai\£^miient  is  disuvowcd  by  later  writers  of  the 
Banie  sehool. 

Analysis  of    Philtppians. 
(Taken  from  Lightfoot.) 

1-2.      Opening  Salutation. 

3-11.     Tiianksgiving  ami  prayer  for  his  converts. 

12-2G.      Account  of  personal  circumstances  and 

feeling;   Progress  of  Gospel  in  Rome. 
27-2:  4.     Exhortation  to  unity  iind  self  negation. 
5-11.     Christ  the  pattern  of  humility. 
12-16.     Practical  following  of  His  example. 

III.  2:  17-30.     Exjtlanation  of  his  intended  movements, 

the  ]>ropose(l   visit  to  Timothy  ;    the  illness, 
recovery,  and  mission  of  Epajjhroditus. 

IV.  3:   1-2.     The  Apostle  begins  his  final  injunctions; 

but  is  interrupted  and  breaks  oii"  suddenly. 

[3:  3-4:  1.  lie  resumes  and  warns  them  against 
two  antagonistic  errors.     Jii({aism  (3:  3-14.) 

He  contrasts  the  doctrine  of  works  with  the  doctrine 
of  grace;  his  former  life  with  the  [irescnt. 
The  doctrine  of  grace  leads  to  a  progressive 
morality.  Thus  he  is  brought  to  speak  sec- 
ondly of  Anlinoniunv'sm  (3:  15-4:  1.) 
He  points  to  his  own  exami)Ie  ;  and  warns 
his  convei'ts  airainst  diverii^mi'-  from  the  right 
path.  He  appeals  to  thenj  as  citizens  of 
heaven.] 

Here  the  digression  ends;  the  main  thread  of  the 
letter  is  recovered  ;  and 

4:2,3.  Tlie  Apostle  once  more  urges  them  to 
lieal  their  dissensions  by  appealing  to  them 
by  name. 

4  :  4-13.      He  exhorts  them  to  joyfulness,  to  freedom 
from  care,  to  the  pursuit  of  all  good  aims. 
V.  4:  10-20.     He  gratefully  acknowledges  their  alma 
received   trom   Epaphroditus,  and   invokes   a 
blessing  on  their  thoughtful  love. 
VI.  4:  21-23.     Salutations  from'all  and  to  all. 
The  farewell  benedictions. 
Commentaries:  Neander;  Eadie  ;  Ellicott;  Lightfoot. 


174 

FOURTH  GROUP. 

Pastoral  Efistlis.  Name:  1  and  2  Timothy  and 
Titus.  Gciiuine  Pauline  epistles.  So  regarded  by  the 
orthodox  clmrches  from  the  end  of  the  second  century. 
Only  in  modern  times  has  their  genuineness  been  called 
in  question,  eithei-  thai  of  all  or  mure  j)articularly  of  1st 
Tim.,  (Bleek  2,  p.  52.)  They  give  instruction  in  jiastorai 
dut}'.  Addi'essed  to  church  organizations  and  office 
bearers  as  preventives  against  falling  into  la.xif-}'  of  disci- 
f)line  and  ei-ror  in  doctrine.  They  ai'e  nccessai-y  to  tlie 
completeness  of  Paul's  epistles.  They  relate  to  the  na- 
ture and  duty  of  church  oflices.  Intei-esting  in  three 
points,  viz.  :  1.  Organization  and  duties  of  officers  ;  2. 
Growth  of  false  doctrines  in  the  cliui'ch  ;  3.  Additional 
information  about  Paul  and  his  companions.  Authenu- 
city  is  attacked  from  the  alleged  impossibility  of  Inirmon- 
izing  the  facts  of  the  ejjistles  with  Acts.  The  best  way 
to  avoid  this  difficulty  is  to  assume  that  the  second  im- 
prisonment was  ende(h  Then  Paul  enters  upon  a  second 
series  of  journeys ;  at  which  time  ejtistles  to  Timothy 
were  written.  This  has  external  evidence  from  wide- 
spi-ead  o[)inion,  from  Fathers,  and  later  evidence.  The 
letters  ihcmselves  prcsup[)ose  great  advance  in  the 
cliurch.  1.  False  doctrines  encumbered  it,  same  state  of 
eri'ors  as  in  Colossians  and  Ephesians.  2.  A  more  ad- 
van(.-ed  «taie  of  organization.  AVieseler  argues  against  a 
second  imprisonment  ;  and  endeavors  to  harmonize  with 
statement  in  Acts.     But  opinion  does  not  gain  favor. 

External  evidence  in  i'avor  of  second  imprisonment. 
1.  Clement  of  Rome  commends  Paul's  zeal.  In  this  he 
uses  two  expressions  from  which  the  date  may  be  infer- 
re(h  (a)  "Paul  martyred  in  time  of  the  rulers."  If  this 
be  the  correct  rendering  the  question  is  settled.  For  we 
may  infei'fr(mi  this  expression  tiiat  N'ero  was  ai)sent  from 
Rome,  and  the  government  under  i-egents  or  prefects. 
Now  Nero  was  absent  A.  D.  66,  67.  (b)  "  Coming  to  the 
limits  of  the  west."  It  is  alleged  that  this  means  Sitain 
or  Britain.  Answers  :  "Limit  of  the  west"  may  mean 
the  limit  of  his  work;  or  Rome;  or  as  the  the  text  is 
uncertain,  whether  -/.ac  stzi  or  xai  u-o  that  he  appeared  be- 
fore  the   highest  powers   of  the  west.  i.  e.  Nero.     This 


175 

exegesis  is  rather  atteisiiated.  Clement  is  not  quoted  in 
proof  l)y  Ensebins,  2.  A  passnii^e  in  Dionysins'  letter  to 
the  Corinthians  "  Paul  and  Peter  tanijht  in  Corinth  and 
were  martyred  at  Rome."  Sitnply  draws  oomoni-ison 
between  Paul  and  Peter.  If  true  in  re_<?ard  to  Peter,  it 
must  be  true  also  of  Paul.  And  henee  a  second  im- 
prisonment for  Pan  I.  It  does  not  say  that  Peter  and 
Paul  traveled  to  Rome  in  conijiany.  3.  The  Muratori 
canon  is  quoted  on  both  sides.  "  Luke  omits  departure 
of  Paul  for  Spain."  But  tliis  sentence  is  incomplete  and 
doubtful.  4.  Eusebius  and  the  Fathei's  jj^enerally  assert ; 
"Paul  was  released  aftei-tirst  imprisonment."  Wiese'.er 
meets  tiiis  by  saying,  (a)  Eusebius  too  late.  (I))  He  (b)es 
does  not  state  this  as  tradition,  but  argues  it  tVom  inter- 
nal evidence:  (2  Tim.  4:  15-17;)  and  mistakes  chro- 
nolog\'.  Objections  to  the  hypothesis.  1.  The  ground 
upon  which  it  rests  is  scanty.  The  tradition  arose  from 
Paul's  purjiose  to  go  beyond  Rome.  No  churches  in 
Spain  claimed  Paul  as  iheir  founder.  Thi.^  only  a  nega- 
tive argument,  yet  there  was  an  early  and  widespread 
extension  of  Christianity  in  Sjtain.  Irenreus  says  there 
were  a  number  of  cliurches  in  liis  day  in  Spain  ;  also  in- 
scriptions to  Nero  refei-ring  to  his  persecutions.  Num- 
ber of  Christians  in  S[)ain  very  large.  But  wliat  is 
known  of  the  other  Ajiostles  after  A.  D.  50.  2.  It  is  ob- 
jected from  the  silence  of  Luke.  But  this  silence  accords 
better  with  second  imprisonment  than  with  immediate 
execution.  The  mode  in  which  Acts  closes  is  consistent 
with  the  length  of  Paul's  life.  If  at  the  close  of  two 
years  he  was  executed,  how  could  Luke  keep  silent? 
Argued  that  it  was  im|>opsil)le  to  rei)eat  all  the  events  of 
Paul's  life.  But  why  impossible?  Theie  was  no  real 
cause  wliy  jiot.  There  were  chances  that  Paul  would  be 
free.  But  after  the  burning  of  Rome  he  is  again  arrested. 
It  is  thought  the  hatred  of  the  peojile  in  Nero's  persecu- 
cutions  was  so  great,  he  wonhl  not  escape  the  first  im- 
prisonment. There  are  doubts  about  tliis.  Gibbon  and 
Merivale  deny  the  Neronian  persecution  on  tlie  ground 
of  tlie  insignificance  of  the  church.  But  the  church  was 
not  so  small  and  the  tire  (A.  D.  64)  changed  the  feeling. 
Improbable  circumstances  of  arrest  repeat  themselves. 


176 

Internal  Arguments  for  the  second  imprisonment  : — 
These  pastonil  epistles  are  so  alike  and  so  ditforent  from 
the  otliers  that  they  may  jioint  to  a  remote  period  in 
Piinl's  lire.  1.  They  presuppose  olahorate  organization 
— implying  a  later  date  than  Paul's  first  imjorisonrnent. 
This  argument  is  used  hy  the  rejectors  of  the  letters. 
But  the  church  was  organized  tVom  the  iirst.  The  dis- 
course to  the  Ephesian  elders  gives  evidence  of  con)i)lete 
church  organization.  That  this  implies  new  offices  is 
in  accor(hince  with  the  prelatic  argnnient.  But  this  is 
not  true  historically.  There  was  no  hierai'clucal  tenden- 
C3^  Mosheim  says,  that  the  oi-ganization  in  the  epistles 
was  so  jtrimitive  as  to  show  an  early  date.  The  argument 
is  valid,  that  the  sid)ject  of  oi'ganization  hecomes  more 
prominent  late  in  the  ajiostolic  period.  2.  The  erro-ists 
are  Judaizing  Gnostics,  same  as  referred  to  in  Colossians 
and  Ephesians.  In  Acts  20  :  29,  30  he  speaks  of  these 
erroi's  as  future.  But  now  they  are  prominent.  Could 
Ist  Timothy  have  heen  written  prior  to  this?  In  Acts 
they  are  predicted,  in  1st  Timothy  they  are  present. 
Answer  (Wieseler  and  Schafi'.)  The  address  at  .\iiletus 
is  not  predictive,  but  puts  envphasis  on  "  among  them- 
selves." The  crrorists  existed,  and  the  warning  against 
the  future  did  not  prove  that  the  errors  had  not  already 
besrun.  The  advance  in  Acts— Ephesians  and  Colossians 
— Timothy.  3.  Style.  Their  similarity  sliows  that  they 
were  conqiosed  together,  and  they  are  alike  in  man\' 
]  oints  in  which  they  diifer  from  other  epistles.  The^- 
contain  a  great  man\'  Pauline  expressions,  the  sequence 
of  thought  is  quiet  and  simple.  Subjects  are  treated 
much  in  same  way.  In  gcnerid  design  they  all  point  to 
a  later  date.  This  point  luis  been  exaggerated  by  oppo- 
nents. 

Paul's  1st  Epistle  to  Timothy.  Four  tilings  inregard 
to  date  of  this  epistle.  1.  Written  some  time  after  Paul 
had  left  Ejihesus  on  his  way  to  Macedonia.  2.  Timothy 
was  left  at  Ephesus  to  oppose  false  teacliera  (I  :  3.)  3. 
Paul  was  free  (3:  14.)  4.  Timothy  was  to  remain  in 
Ephesus  till  Paul  should  return  tl.ere,  (3  :  14,4:13.)  But 
Paul  was  twice  in  Ejihesus  (Acts  18 :  19  and  Acts  19.) 
1.   Calvin  says  it  was  written  after  the  first  visit  to  Ephe- 


177 

8I1S.  But  there  was  a  clmrcli  there,  arid  he  did  not  leave 
Timothy  but  Aquihi  and  Piiscilhi;  Tanl  went  immedi- 
ately to  Jerusalem  after  the  tirst  visit  (18:  21.)  2,  The- 
odoret  says  it  was  written  after  Acts  19  from  Macedonia 
soon  after  leavinji^  Epliesus,  between  2  Corinthians  and 
Romans.  But  Timothy  had  i^one  to  Corinth  (1  Cor.  4: 
17;  Acts  19:  22.)  Paul  did  not  then  expect  to  retiiru 
8oon(Actsl9:21)(lCor.  16:3;  Rom.  15  :  23-27.)  Timothy 
went  with  him  to  Macedonia,  (2  Cor.  1:1;  Rom,  10  :  21 ; 
Acts  20  :  4.)  There  was  no  object  in  such  a  letter  so 
soon.  8.  That  it  was  on  his  return  from  Corinth,  (Acta 
20:4-6.)  This  attended  witli  the  same  difficulties.  4. 
An  alternative  nnd<es  it  on  a  journey  to  Gi'eece  durinn^ii 
long  stay  at  Ephesus,  (Acts  19.)  Soon  after  reaching 
Ei)liesus,  or  VV^ieseler  and  Scliafi'  take  an  unrecorded 
vi.sit  to  answer  the  purpose  about  56  A.  D.,  aft<n'  Paul 
had  been  two  years  in  Ephesus.  This  would  be  the  same 
journey  to  Corinth  with  2  Cor.  He  was  e.xpected  then 
to  return.  This  agrees  with  the  youth  of  Timothy,  (1 
Tim.  1:1;  4:  12.)  Objection:  This  would  put  1  Tim. 
before  Acts  20  and  1  Cor.  Makes  Timothy  to  be  sepa- 
rated from  Paul  for  too  short  a  time,  for  the  letter  repre- 
sents a  long  stay  of  Timothy  in  Epjjesus. 

Analysis  of  First  Timothy. 

Part  I.  The  Introduction,  (1  :  1-2.) 

Part  II.  Timothy  Instructed  respecting  his  Administra- 
tion over  the  church  at  Ejihesus. 
Section  1.  Timothy  reminded  of  the  charge  committed 
to  him,  to  preserve  the  purity  of  the  Gospel 
against  false  teachers  and  shown  the  use  of 
the  law  of  Moses,  of  which  these  teachers 
were  ignorant,  (1  :  3-11.)    Having  mention- 
ed the  Gospel  Paul  digresses  to  express  his 
gratitude  to  God  for  calling  him  who   had 
been  a  pei-secutor,  (1  :  12-20.) 
Section  2.   I'articular  Instructions. 

a.  As  to  the  mode  of  divine   worsliip  in   the 
Ephesian  church,  (2.) 

b.  As  to  the  qualitications  of  bishops  and  dea- 
cons, (8.) 


178 

c.  Corrnptions  in  tlie  church  foretold  (4  :  1-5) 
aiul  Timothy  instructed, 

(1)  How  to  support  the  sacred  character, 
(4  :  6-16.) 

(2)  How  to  admonish  aged  men  and  women 
(5  :  1-2) ;  treatment  of  widows,  (5  :  3-16) ; 
elders,  (5  :  17-19) ;  and  offenders,  (5  :  20- 
21);  personal  instructions  to  Timothy, 
(5  :  22-24.) 

(3)  Concei-ninfj;  duties  to  slaves,  (6  :  1-2.) 
Section  3.  Condemns  trifling  controversies,  and  perni- 
cious disputes,  censures   excessive    love    of 
money,  and  charges  the  rich,  to  be  rich  in 
good  woi'ks,  (6:  3-19.) 

Part  ni.  The  Conclusion,  (6  :  20-21.) 

Paul's  Epistle  to  Titus.  A  prominent  helper  of 
Paul,  but  never  mentioned  in  Acts,  unless  18  :  7  reads, 
according  to  A.  B.  D.,  Tiscii.  "  Titus"  or  "  Titus  Jus- 
tus" instead  of"  house  of  Justus."  This  supposed  to  be 
Titus,  but  it  is  very  uncertain.  From  tlie  epistles  we 
learn  that  he  was  a  Greek  and  uncii'cnmcised,  (Gal.  2:3; 
Gal.  2:1;  Acts  15.)  He  was  sent  from  Ephesus  to  Cor- 
inth, (2  Cor.  7:6;  12  :  18.)  Paul  expected  him  at  Troas, 
(2  Cor.  2:  13.)  They  rnet  in  Macedonia,  (2  Cor.  7:  5.) 
Titus  carried  2  Corl  to  Corinth,  (2  Cor.  8:  1-14;  9:  3.) 
He  left  Paul  in  Rome  and  went  into  Dalmatia,  (2  Tim. 
4  :  10.)  Tradition  says  that  he  was  Bishop  of  Crete,  and 
died  at  an  advanced  age.  His  naiue  was  the  watchword 
of  Cretans  wlien  invaded  by  the  Venetians,  (Smith's  Bi- 
ble Diet.  Art.  Titus.)  Paufhad  been  in'  Crete  and  left 
Titus  behind  him,  (Tit,  1  :  5)  to  wait  there  for  Artemas 
and  Tychicus  and  then  to  i-ejoin  Paul  in  Nicopolis(3  :12.) 
The  letter  was  written  between  j'aul's  leaving  Titus,  and 
the  winter,  and  it  was  sent  by  Zenas  and  Apollos,  (3  : 
13.)  The  only  mention  of  Paul  in  Crete  is  in  Acts, 
(27  :  7.)  1.  Grotiussays  this  was  the  time  he  left  Titus, 
referred  to  Tit.  1  :  5.  But  there  was  a  long  interval  be- 
fore the  letter,  and  Paul  did  not  stay  to  labor  at  that  time. 
2.  That  it  was  befoi-e  his  going  tolEurope,  (Acts  15  :  41.) 
But  the  minuteness  of  Luke  leads  us  to  suppose  that  he 
would  have  made  meutiou  of  the  fact.     3.  That  it  was 


179 

written  diiriiio^  liia  first  stay  in  Corinth,  (Acts  18  :  18.) 
This  does  uway  with  the  nnrecorded  trip  from  Ephesiis. 
Bnt  tiie  second  visit  to  Corinth  was  hiter,  and  the  letter 
was  sent  by  Apollos,  4.  On  his  return  from  Corinth  to 
Ephesus,  (Acts  18 :  19.)  Bnt  lie  Wiis  hastenino;  to  Jern- 
salem.  5.  I'hat  he  wrote  it  on  his  way  from  Ephesns  to 
Maced(Miia,(Acts20:  1-2.)  Bnt  Titns  was  then  in  Ci)rinth, 
(2  Cor.  12:  18,)  and    this   winter   was   spent  in   Achaia. 

6.  Theodoret  says  it  was  when  Paul  left  Corintii,  (x\ct9 
20.)     Bnt  tliis  was  in  the  3i)i'in<i;  ;iiid  Titus  was  in  Corinth. 

7.  An  alternative  that  as  also  1  Tim.  duriniij  (Acts  19.) 
extension  of  the  \'isit  from  Ephesns.  TJie  winter  was 
spent  in  Epirns  whicli  beh)nged  to  Achaia,  wliich  }igree3 
with  Afts  20  ;  l^om.  15  :  23.  Objection.  Titns  wa^  too 
busy.  When  Paul  touched  at  Crete,  tliere  was  no  evi- 
dence of  a  ciiureh  there. 

Analysis  of  Epistle  to  Titus. 

Part    I.  Inscription,  (1:  1-4.) 
Part  11.  Insti'uctions  to  Titus. 

Section  1.  Concernino'  the  appointment  of  bishops  and 
deacons,  (5-9.)     Enjoins  caution  in  select- 
in<r  such  officers,  (10-16.) 
Section  2.  E.xliortations  to  be   accommodated    to  the 
respective  ages,  se.xes,  and  circumstances  of 
his  liearoi's.     E.Khorted  to  be  an  example  of 
wliat  he  taught,  (2.) 
Section  3.  Obedience  to  t\\e  civil  magistrates  to  be  in- 
culcated in  opposition  to   the  teachings   of 
Jndaizing  teaohers.     Gentleness  to  all  men 
to  l)c  enforced,  (3  :  1-7.) 
Section  4.  To  enforce  good  works. 

To  avoid  foolisii  questions. 
To  shun  heretics,  (3  :  1-7.) 
Part  III.  An  invitation  to  Titus,  to  come  to  the  Apos- 
tle at  Nicopolis,  together  with   various  direc- 
tions, (3:  12-15.) 

Paul's  2nd  Epistle  to  Timothy.  (1.)  Paul  in  Rome 
again  (2  Tim.  1  :  17  ;  4:  6.)  A  prisoner  and  expecting 
death.  (1:812;  2  :  19  ;  4  :  6-18.)  (2.)  Timothy  was  in 
Ephesus  (1  :  18  ;  4:  19.)     He  was  to   bring  Mark   from 


180 


Colossfe,  (Col.  4  :  10  ;  2  Tim.  4  :  11.)  Also  to  brit)g  the 
things  left  nt  Trons>(4:  13.)  (3.)  Friends  were  absent 
(4:  iO;  Philem.  24.)  (4.)  Paul  had  been  at  Troas  and 
left  his  cloak  and  books,  (4  :  13.)  Left  Trophinius  sick 
at  Miletus  and  Erastus  at  Corinth,  (4  :  20  ) 

When  was  the  epistle  loritten.  1.  Bes^inning  of  first 
imprisonment  and  before  the  other  epistles.  But  the 
dilHculty  with  this  is  the  movement  of  his  companions, 
(4:20.)"  Col,  Philem.,  etc.  (Introduction  to  the  New 
Test.,  Bleek,  Vol.  2,  p.  75.)  Expects  Timothy  to  reach 
Rome  so  soon.  Occasions  an  unnatural  coml>ination  as 
to  his  condition  as  a  prisoner.  Now  he  is  ready  to  be 
executed,  (4  :  6.)  In  Philippians  either  execution  or  re- 
lease. 2.  At  end  of  the  first  imprisonment.  Wieseler 
and  Schaff.  But  Paul's  condition  in  second  imprison- 
ment far  worse  than  in  previous  one,  owing  to  political 
changes,  in  close  confinement  and  situation  extremely 
dangerous,  (4:  6,  7,  16.)  But  if  written  in  fir^t  imprisou- 
ment  he  had  not  been  at  Troas  for  five  years.  lie  was 
two  years  at  Csesarea.  Also  he  had  abundant  opportu- 
nities to  send  for  the  articles,  and  it  is  natural  to  think 
he  would  liave  done  so.  New  names  are  introduced,  as 
seen  in  the  greetings,  which  implies  a  ditference  in  the 
time  of  composition.  Similarities  of  the  epistle  with  1 
Timothy  and  Titus.  Again,  Paul  had  left  Trophimus  at 
Miletus,  sicic  (4  :  20.)  When  did  he  leave  him?  This 
could  not  have  happened  on  the  journey  to  Jerusalem, 
for  Trophimus  was  with  Paul  at  Jerusalem,  (Acts  21  : 
29.)  Some  say  that  Miletus  was  in  Crete,  to  make  out 
that  Paul  left  Trophimus  there  on  his  journey  from 
Caesarea  into  Italy.  Some  say  that  Paul  took  another 
ship  at  Myra  and  that  Trophimus  remained  in  the  first 
and  sailed  therein  to  Miletus.  But  Timothy  was  with 
Paul  and  knew  all  this  ;  why  then  should  he  te.ll  him? 
When  did  Erastus  stay  at  Corinth  ?  If  epistle  was  writ- 
ten in  first  imprisonment  Paul  had  not  been  in  Corinth 
for  five  years.  Wieseler  explains  it  by  saying  that  Paul 
had  sent  for  him  to  come  to  Rome  but  he  did  not  come. 
Also  Timothy  had  been  at  Rome,  and  had  gone  to  Phi- 
lippi  and  was  immediately  summoned  back  from  Ephe- 
8118.     All  would   be  easy  if  the  epistle  were   put  at  the 


181 

close  of  the  secoiul  imprisonniont.  It  would  explain  the 
introdiictioM  of"  new  names,  the  change  of  condition, 
also  time  would  he  given  for  the  events  recorded. 

Conihination  of  data.  Assuming  the  genuineness  of 
the  e[iistle  and  rememljcring  the  data  of  the  epistle  to 
Titus,  and  the  j»as,sage  from  Clement  of  Rome.  1.  He 
went  from  liome  to  Spain,  and  thence  eastward  to  Crete 
and  thence  to  Asia  Minor  and  Greece.  (Bleek,  2,  p.  77.) 
2.  He  was  re-arrested  early  because  he  could  not  travel, 
after  the  persecution  of  Gi.  But  that  panic  was  confined 
to  Rome,  and  the  time  specified  crowds  the  journeys  too 
much.  3.  After  being  released,  he  goes  first  to  E[)hesus, 
thence  to  Macedonia,  leaving  Timothy  in  E|)hesus ; 
thence  to  Crete  leaving  Titus;  thence  to  Corinth  b-y 
Miletus  leaving  Trophimus  sick  there,  and  Erastus  in 
Corinth  ;  and  spends  the  winter  in  Epirus,  where  some 
8;iy  he  was  arrested,  because  this  was  the  last  mention 
made  of  him  in  the  Xew  Testament.  Others  say  in 
Spain  or  Britain. 

Analysis  of  2  Timothy. 

Part    I.  The  rnscripfion,  (1  :  1-5.) 
Part  II.  An  Exhortation  to  Timothy. 

Section  1.   To  be  diligent,  patient  and  firm  in  keeping 
the  form  of  sound  doctrine,  in  which  is  in- 
troduced  a   prayer  foi-  Onesiphorus,  (1 :  2- 
18.) 
Section  2.  To  fortitude  ;  to  preach  the  pure  doctrine 
of  the  Gospel   to  others,  and  to  purity  of 
life,  (2.) 
Section  3.  To    beware   of  fulse   teachers    who    should 
come  in    the   last  times;  to  be  constant  in 
his  profession  of  tlie  Gospel,  resting  on  the 
plenary   authority  of  the  Holy  Scripture; 
and  to  be  diligent  in  his  ministerial  labors, 
(3  and  4  :  1-8.') 
Part  III.  The  conclus;ion.     Containing  (1)  The  Apostle's 
request  to  Timothy  to  come  to  him  as  soon   as 
possible.     (2)  Various  salutations,  (4:  9-22.) 

Time  of  Paul's  death.  Tradition  says  it  was  66  or 
67,  during  Nero's  journey  to   Greece,  or  just  before  bis 


182 

suicide  in  tlie  13th  or  14th  year  of  hisreis^n.  Pan I'p  death 
is  recorded  by  his  coiiteiiiporary  Clerneut  of  Rome;  also 
by  the  "Roman  Presbyter  C'ains  200  A.  1).,  wlio  says  that 
he  was  shiin  by  a  s\vor:i  because  he  wjis  a  Roman  citizen, 
and  the  site  of  liis  deatli  was  the  Ostian  Road — the  site 
of  the  present  Protestant  burial  ground.  (Conybe.are 
and  Ilowson,  2,  pp.  486-7).  Contrast  Paul's  condition  in 
2  Timothy  and  in  Philippians.  In  2  Tin)otliy  (1  :  9)  re- 
garded in  tlielightof  an  "evil  doer."  J^opniar  violence 
e.xcited  against  him.  There  was  a  change  in  the  position 
.of  Christians  since  the  buruing  of  Rome  64  A.  I).  Paul 
expects  deatli  (4  :  6,)  lie  lias  fought  the  good  fight  (4  : 
7.)  lie  mimes  Eubulns,  Pudens,  Linus,  Claudia.  Mar- 
tial, the  Spanish  poet,  went  to  liomeA.l).  QG.  Mentions 
two  contem))oraries,  Pudens  and  Claudia,  the  daughter 
of  a  British  king,  as  husband  and  wife.  An  English  in- 
scription, found  in  1723  at  Cliichester,  connects  a  Pudens 
witli  Britain  and  with  a  Claudian  name.  Lii^htfoot 
doubts  because  Martial  came  later,  and  connects  Pudens 
with  idolatry.  (See  Smith's  Dictionary,  Art.  I^ulens.) 
Is  Linus  the  hi'^hop  of  Rome  ?  So  stated  by  Rulinus. 
(See  Smith's  Dictionary,  Art.  Liuus.) 

Genuineness  of  the  Pastorals.  This  unquestioned  till 
this  century,  when  they  were  attacked  by  Schmidt  and 
Schleiermacher ;  the  latter  gave  up  1  Tim.  DeWette 
denied  tlie  genuineness  of  all  three.  Baur  and  David- 
son put  them  late  in  the  second  century,  subsequent  to 
the  appearance  of  Marcion  and  other  Gnostics.  The 
special  ditficulries  with  1  Tim.  are  :  1.  The  qualifications 
biid  down  to  admit  ofRcei's  into  the  church  are  too  simple. 
Common  sense  would  dictate  this.  Appro])riate  for 
Crete,  but  Ephesus  an  old  church.  Paul  had  lived  long 
at  Epliesus  and  we  would  e.xpect  persomil  allusions.  But 
because  of  errors  there  was  need  of  care  in  the  selection 
of  officers.  There  must  be  some  such  genei-al  directions 
for  the  whole  church.  The  personal  supervision  of  Paul 
was  withdrawn.  Ilis  pastoral  epistles  were  a  safeguard 
for  the  chiirch  against  hierarchical  pretensions.  2.  (1 
Tim.  1  :  20.)  Ilymenaeus  and  Alexander  are  excommun- 
icated, but  in  2  Tim.  2  :  17  Ilymenaeus  and  Philetus 
spoken  of  as  denying  the   resurrection.      Tliis    does  not 


183 


prove  thatbe  hiid  not  been  diseiplnied,  or  there  rna_y  have 
been  two  llyinciinensos.  8.  1  Tim.  4  :  12  implies  that 
Timotliy  \va3  yonno;.  But  the  youth  of  Timothy  presents 
no  diliiciilty.  Supposed  to  be  about  40  or  45  years  ohl. 
5:18  contains  a  quotation  from  Dent.  25:4,  com- 
bined with  a  saying  of  Christ.  Hence  the  inference  that 
tliese  words  were  written  after  the  Gospels  had  been  re- 
conled.  But  the  fact  of  this  combimition  doe-^  not  prove 
that  the  saying  of  Christ  had  been  reduced  to  writing. 
General  argument  against  tin;  three  epistles.  1.  Lun- 
guaiff.  The  use  of  [jeculiar  words  especially  such  as  are 
analogous  to  gnostic  expressions.  And  want  of  logical 
sequence.  The  argument  is  intermingled  with  cxlio_r- 
tation.  Timothy  and  Titus  treated  as  though  they  were 
children,  lie  states  the  first  principles  of  holy  living. 
Ans.  The  style  is  diff'i!rent  on  account  of  the  advanced 
aire  of  the  apostle.  He  is  writing  as  an  old  man  to  a  son. 
It  is  written  to  individuals,  and  not  dictated.  And  there 
is  a  difference  in  subject  in  the  several  epistles.  lie  is 
not  ignorant  of  the  errors  which  existed.  The  whole 
argument  mistakes  tliese  supplementary  positions  in  the 
canon.  The  differences  have  been  very  greatly  exagger- 
ated. The  resemblances  are  more  numerous  tlian  the 
differences.  There  is  no  more  dift'rireuce  between  these 
ejiistles  than  between  others  of  the  second  and  third 
groufts.  2.  Advanced  organization.  Alleged  that 
Charismata  are  thrown  into  the  background.  More 
stress  is  laid  on  outward  organization.  They  iniply  a 
hierarchical  development.  The  priest  reappears  in  the 
church.  We  liear  of  Bishops,  Presbyters,  etc.  It  is  true 
that  the  gifts  are  withdrawn  to  the  background,  but  not 
true  that  tliese  letters  prove  the  existence  in  the  church 
of  a  liierarchical  system.  The  fact  itself  is  denied  except 
by  pi-elatists  and  rationalists.  In  1  Tim.  5:11  the 
word  widows  is  applied  to  those  of  a  consecrated  life, 
but  in  Acts  G  :  1,  to  those  who  were  proper  objects  of 
charity.  Alleged  that  bishops,  deacons  and  presbyters  are 
used  in  the  sense  of  orders  of  the  ministry.  But  E[)is- 
copos  and  Presbutei-os  are  used  as  synonymous  in  the 
Pastorals.  (Titus.  1  :  5-7.)  There  was  no  intermediate 
order  between  bishops  and  deacons.  (1  Tim.  3.)  So  3  :  12 


184 

does  not  imply  an  advance  in  orders.  Laying  on  of 
hands  (1  Tim.  4  :  14.)  Said  tliat  the  word  lierotic  is  used 
in  a  later  sense  ;  and  that  excommunication  for  heresy 
belongs  to  a  later  tin\e.  (Titus  3  :  10.)  On  the  other 
hand  it  is  not  used  in  later  sense  of  finuL'imeutal  error  in 
this  ejiistle.  The  hei-esv  here  is  used  in  the  same  sense 
as  in  Gal.  and  1  Cor.  Ellicott  and  Alford  insist  that 
there  is  no  evidence  of  a  hierarcliical  system.  (x\lford 
Greek  Testament  on  Pastoral  epistles.)  Organiz- 
ation began  from  the  very  lirst.  Compare  Ignatius.  3. 
JSrrorists.  Alleged  that  errorists  are  Judaizing  Gnostics 
and  hence  the  letters  are  late,  (1)  The  writer  warns  the 
church  against  "  endless  genealogies."  (1  Tim.  1  :  4.) 
(Titus  3  :  9.)  These  ai-e  said  gnos^tic  "  Aeons."  Also  1 
Tim.  6  :  20  "  science  falsely  so  called"  is  taken  as  evi- 
dence that  tliey  had  exalted  the  gnosis.  The  errorists 
held  to  SI  spiritual  resurrection,  (2  Tim.  2  :  18.)  Baur 
says  this  was  held  only  in  the  time  of  Marcion.  But  the 
fal.se  doctrine  of  matter  and  body  led  to  the  false  views 
concerning  death  and  the  resurrection.  In  1  Tim  2  :  5, 
from  the  expression  "  Man  Christ  Jesus,"  the  person  of 
Christ  was  ]'\.\t  on  Docetic  grounds.  The  doctrine  of 
Dualism  is  implied  from  the  ascetic  prohibitions  in  1 
Tim.  4  :  3 — forbidden  to  rnari'y  and  to  eat  flesh.  Baur 
says  this  was  not  Judaic  Gnosticism,  for  it  was  opposed 
to  the  law.  He  refers  it  to  Marcion.  But  these  same 
tilings  are  seen  before  in  the  case  of  the  Esseucs  and 
Therapeutce.  Some  say  these  put  the  letters  early  in 
the  second  century.  Baur  sa^-s  these  letters  came  from 
tlie  school  of  Marcion,  because  Hegesippus  in  the  mid- 
dle of  the  second  century  says  "  After  the  apostles  were 
dead  Gnosticism  arose."  Also  said  to  be  a  similarity  of 
ex))ressions  in  Marcion  with  the  epistles.  (1  Tim.  1  : 
1-10,  etc.)  They  opposed  the  Law.  (1  Tim.  1  •:  7-8.) 
Hence  "Law  is  good,"  is  said  to  be  in  opposition  to  an- 
tinomian  teachers  (1  Tim.  1  :  7,)  and  legal  strifes.  But 
the  reverse  is  obvious;  they  insisted  on  the  law.  The 
oppositions  of  science  in  1  Tim.  6:  20  is  said  to  refer 
to  a  work  of  Marcion,  called  Antitheses.  Baur  says  the 
errors  were  Gnostic,  yet  that  the  writer  himself  is  taint- 
ed with  Gnostic  terminology  and  Ciiristology.     All  that 


185 

is  proved  is  tlint  liere,  ns  in  Colossions  and  E|)liesinns, 
the  error  is  m-owini^.  There  is  evidence  tliat  it  is  more 
advanced.  1.  !So  i^'reat  a  prominence  ^iven  to  the  sub- 
ject in  the  letters.  2.  0|>itosition  to  false  "  science," 
and  resistance  ot"  "lieretic"  imply  a  delinite  shajie  taken 
by  the  teacliersif  not  actnal  separation,  Tenet.s  aie  be- 
come more  detinitc.  Organization  is  relied  on  to  resist 
error;  and  care  is  taken  in  the  selection  of  otHcers.  It 
is  alicijed  that  there  was  an  intention  of  a  former  to  med- 
iate between  two  parties  in  the  church.  (DeWette.) 
To  oppose  err(n"s  he  wrote  2  Timothy  and  Titus.  But 
not  satislied  with  this  he  wrote  1  Timothy  last.  But 
a  (iilen\ma  i)resented  itself.  If  lie  should  describe  the 
errors  derinitely  it  would  betray  a  late  date.-  Hence  the 
confusion  and  disarrani;em(M»t  of  1  Timothy-.  'J'he  fraud 
was  a  |)ious  one.  It  was  an  extreme  case  ;  mimicking 
tlie  feelings  of  Paul  at  the  end  of  his  life.  Davidson 
denied  that  there  is  any  evidence  of  the  canonicity  of 
these  ejVi.stles  till  IfiO  A."l).  But  the  Peshito  and  Miir- 
atori  170  A.  D,  Number  of  epistles  attributed  to  Paul 
is  always  thirteen  or  fourteen.  Quotations  and  allusions 
are  made  in  Clement  of  Rome,  Leniieus,  and  Epistle  of 
Diognetus.  The  burden  of  proof  rests  on  opponents. 
The  internal  proof  of  genuineness  is  their  intrinsic 
value,  and  the  necessity  of  them  to  the  completeness  of 
the  canon. 

FIFTH  GROUP. 

Epistle  to  the  Hebrew?.  The  great  fact  of  the 
A])ostolic  age  is  the  change  of  the  dis|(ensations.  The 
ejiistle  which  describes  the  rtdation  of  the  two  is  im- 
portant. Soon  after  l^aul's  release  from  prison  in  Rome 
A.  1).  63,  persecution  broke  out  in  Jerusalem,  and  James 
was  beheaded.  The  Jews  were  despondent,  and  u)ider 
these  circumstances  Paul  was  the  one  to  write  the  ei/istle 
of  exhortation  and  consolation.  Authorship.  The  main 
argument  for  its  Pauline  autluM'sliip  is  internal.  The 
style  and  peculiarity  of  doctrinal  exposition  have  always 
been  considered  Pauline.  The  earliest  testimony  of  the 
eastern  church  is  in  favor  of  its  Pauline  origin.  There 
was  a  general  ackuowledgment  that  Paul  either  wrote 


186 


it  or  superintended  its  composition.  Opposing  views 
prevailed  in  the  western  clinrcli,  and  doubts  as  to  its 
authoi'siiii).  till  the  seventh  century.  It  was  received  as 
Pauline  at  the  Ret'orniation.  Since  then  in  Germany  its 
Pauline  autliorsliip  has  been  largely  but  not  exclusively 
denied.  In  England  and  America  opposite  opinions  [)i-e- 
vail.  External  evidence  :  Su|:»posed  allusions  to  its 
Pauline  authorsh.ip  are  found  in  2  Pet.  3  :  12,  15,  16. 
Heb.  10:  25;  11:  31,  James  2:  24,  25.  The  earliest 
Patristic  testimony  is  tVom  Clement  of  Rome  who  makes 
frequent  quotations  from,  and  allusions  to,  the  epistle 
without  reference  to  the  author.  Here  arisen  the  ques- 
tion, what  constitutes  canonicity.  Some  infer  its  Pauline 
authorship  on  the  ground  of  its  accejitanco  as  canonical. 
Bleek,  Alford  and  others  set  aside  this  testimony  of  Cle- 
ment as  liaving  no  beai'ing  on  the  authorship;  but  Cle- 
ment quotes  Ilebrews  in  the  same  way  that  he  does  all 
the  epistles  of  Paul,  hence  the  inference  that  had  it  been 
b}'  another,  he  would  have  mentioned  the  fact.  Sup- 
posed allusions  are  made  to  the  e[»istle  by  Polycarp,  Igna- 
tius and  Justin.  Alexamlrine  testimony.  In  the  second 
and  third  centuries  testimony  is  traiisrerre<l  to  Alexan- 
dria. Pantffiiius  says  that  I'aul  was  the  author,  and  ex- 
plains the  omissions  of  his  name  from  reverence  to 
Christ  and  modesty,  since  he  was  the  Ai)ostie  to  the 
Gentiles.  Bleek  says  that  this  may  be  only  a  personal 
judgment  and  proves  that  a  doubt  had  already  arisen. 
Clement  quotes  the  epistle  freipiently  as  Paul's,  but  on 
account  of  its  style  suggests  that  Paul  wrote  it  in  Hebrew 
and  Luke  translated  it  into  Greek,  and  thus  accounts  for 
its  being  anonymous.  Bleek  says  that  thei'e  is  no  evi- 
dence of  this  ^historical  tradition,  but  there  is  evidence 
that  it  was  a  current  belief  in  Alexandria.  Origen  cites 
the  epistle  more  than  two  hundred  times  as  "  th-e  Apos- 
tle's," "  Paul's.*'  In  speaking  of  the  authorship,  he  says 
that  the  thouglits  are  Paul's  in  the  language  of  another. 
Bleek  infers  that  the  current  oi)inion  was  that  it  was  not 
Pauline,  that  this  was  only  a  conjecture  of  a  few  schol- 
ars. They  met  the  difficulties  by  supi)osing  an  inter- 
mediate author.  The  opinion  of  its  Pauline  autliorsliip 
increased   throughout   the  Eastern  church.     The  Syrian 


187 

Church  received  it  as  Panliiie  aiiil  in  tiic  Peshito  it  is 
arranged  among  Paul's  letters.  There  is  no  trace  of 
doubt  in  the  east  in  the  third  and  foui'th  centuries,  except 
in  Alexandria.  In  the  west  it  was  dittcrent.  Irenfieusis 
a  negative  witness  against  its  l^mline  autliorsliip,  as  ho 
does  not  quote  it.  Tei-tnliian  ast-fihes  it  to  Cariiahas  to 
strengthen  its  authority  :  so  also  does  Cyprian.  Cains 
enumerates  18  epistles  of  Paul.  Both  the  Muratori 
canon  and  the  Itala  omit  Hebrews.  This  opinion  in  the 
Eastern  church  gradually  increased  until  the  time  of 
Augustine  and  Jerome,  who  received  the  epistle  as  Pau- 
line. The  councils  of  Hippo  and  Carthage  jiccepted  it 
on  the  authority  of  the  Kistei'u  chui'ch.  The  silence  of 
the  Western  church  tVom  the  second  till  the  beginniu'g 
of  the  fourth  century  may  be  accounted  for  from  the  in- 
fluence of  Marcion,  and  of  Montanism,  and  from  the  use 
made  of  Ileb.  G  against  lapsed  members.  But  Tei-tul- 
lian,  a  Montanist,  accepted  the  epistle.  The  Eastern 
tradition  seems  more  probable,  v/hich  re])resents  it  as 
written  here  and  sent  to  the  East,  containing  matter  of 
special  interest  to  the  Palestinian  Jews.  The  disturbed 
state  of  the  early  tradition  is  accounted  for  if  it  origi- 
nateil  in  Palestine.  The  silence  of  some  of  the  westei'u 
fathers  and  the  opposition  of  others  to  the  canouicity 
give  greater  weight  to  the  authority  of  the  Eastern  church. 
Intei'iial  evidence  :  The  first  argument  in  favoi*  of  its 
Pauline  authorship  is  derived  from  personal  references. 
The  writer  refers  to  himself  as  a  pi-isoner,  10:  34,  as  ex- 
pecting to  be  free,  I'd:  19,  and  to  Timothy  as  his  friend 
and  companion,  13:  23.  Then  follows  the  closing  saluta- 
tion, 13:  24,  they  of  Italy  salute  you.  Bleek  and  others 
say  that  he  could  not  have  used  a-o  if  he  were  writing 
in  Italy,  but  si/.  Winer  asserts  the  contrary.  It  is  said 
that  the  author  classes  himself  with  those  who  had  re- 
ceived the  Gospel  at  second  hand,  2  :  3.  But  the  writer 
W(Hild  not  have  changed  the  first  uerson  plural  which  runs 
through  all  the  [)i-eceding  verses.  The  above  references 
agree  with  its  Pauline  autlnn-ship.  The  anonymousness 
of  the  epistle  is  not  fatal,  since  it  is  not  here  intf.nded  to 
conceal  the  name  but  sim[ily  not  to  enforce  argument  by 
his  personal  authority.  It  is  less  an  epistle  than  a  trea- 
tise. 


188 

Contents.  Luther  ohjocted  to  chaji.  6  as  nnscriptnral. 
Scbultz  ohjcctod  to  its  Jewish  elinracfer.  ILisc  sa ys  that 
it  was  written  hy  a  Nazareiio,  hut  of  Alexandi-iiie  culture, 
to  viijorar  Nazareiie  Christians.  Baur  says  it  is  the  first 
of  a  series  of  irenic  Pauline  writins^s  whose  oltject  was 
to  unify  opposino-  types  of  doctrine.  Particular  ohjec- 
tions  have  been  made  (1)  that  the  author  does  not  speak 
of  the  calling  of  the  Gentiles.  Answer:  The  o])istie 
refers  not  to  the  Jews  and  Gentiles  i)ut  to  the  Jewish 
Christians  and  their  relation  to  the  church.  It  is  most  ap- 
propriate that  Paul,  who  wms  ihe  author  of  the  epistle 
wliich  describes  their  losslhrough  the  i-ejection  of  C'hrist 
should  urge  their  spiritual  gain  by  acceptinir  Clirist  as 
the  Messiidi  of  the  O.  T. "  2.  It*^  is  objected  that  the 
presentation  of  the  relation  of  the  old  and  new  dispen- 
sations is  contrary-  to  Paul  ;  but  this  would  argue  against 
its  canoni<?ity  as  well  as  authorship).  3.  It  is  objected 
tliat  the  cliristolog\' is  more  developed  than  Paul's.  The 
Christ  of  Hebrews  is  said  to  be  the  a>j'oc  of  John,  wliich 
is  the  same  as  tluit  of  Philo.  Answer:  Christ  is 
here  set  forth  by  comparison  as  su])erior  to  Moses,  as  an 
High  Priest,  as  mediator  and  as  above  angels.  lie  is 
called  Son,  Lord,  God,  Creator,  uiiholder,  and  lience 
pree.xi.'^tent.  Anti-docetic  terms  are  used  to  insist  on  the 
humanity  of  Christ  as  illustrated  by  the  expressions, 
"  partaker  of  flesh  and  blood."  "strong  crying  and  tears." 
Oidy  as  a  man  could  He  be  the  Savior  of  the  world. 
From  these  expressions  there  is  no  objection  to  its  Pau- 
line authorship,  unless  we  reject  Ephesians  and  Colos- 
sians.  4.  It  is  objected  that  faith  in  this  ei)istle  termi- 
nates on  God's  promise  of  favor  and  not  on  the  ]>erson 
of  Christ.  There  is  no  discussion  about  faith  and  works, 
and  no  mentionof  justification,  repentance,  effectual  call- 
ing, nor  the  resurrection.  Answer  :  (a)  The  writer  de- 
fines faith  so  as  to  include  believers  i^oth  under  tlm  old 
and  new  covenants.  (1))  His  object  was  not  to  define 
faith  but  to  confirm  tlie  Jewish  believers  by  reference  to 
the  promises  and  fidelity  of  God.  (c)  The  promises  of 
God  are  taken  for  granted  as  including  and  coming 
through  Christ.  The  objection  is  futile  against  a.  letter 
so   full  of  Christ,      (d)  This  objection    contradicts    the 


t» 


189 

third.  5.  It  is  objected  tliat  tlie  doctrine  of  aalvntion  is 
presented  as  dependent  npon  the  idea  of  the  his^h  priest- 
hood of  Christ  ahine,  without  an  anal3-sis  of  the  jiarts  of 
the  work  of  salvation.  Answer:  This  is  oidy  a  differ- 
ence in  the  mode  of  presentation  and  may  he  accounted 
for  hy  the  object  of  the  writer  witli  reference  to  O.  T, 
ideas.  Most  of  those  who  rely  on  a  diffei-ence  of  con- 
ception to  jM'ove  a  ditfei'cnt  anthorship  acknowled^je  an 
essential  airreenient  wich  the  other  Panline  epistles.  6. 
It  is  stated  that  the  quotations  are  from  Sept.  IJIeek  in  his 
compai'ison  of  Paul's  (piotations  says  that  he  usually  fol- 
low-<the  Se|it.  c.xccjit  when  it  varies  from  the  Hebrew.  But 
in  Hebrews  the  (piotations  are  uniformly  fi'om  the  Sept. 
from  the  Alexandrine  te.xt  ariil  always  as  the  word  rtf 
God  ;  whereas  in  other  e[)istles  Paul  introduces  quota- 
tions by  various  foi'mulas.  Perhaps  tiie  difference  here 
is  due  to  personal  care  in  style.  7.  The  principal  diffi- 
culty as  to  its  Pauline  authorship  is  said  to  be  tlie  style. 
Lists  of  h.zat  hroazi^o.  have  been  made  and  of  structural 
peculiarities.  It  is  said  to  be  more  like  Luke  in  the  use 
of  [(articles  and  in  the  sequence  of  clauses.  Answer: 
On  the  other  hand  the  epistle  exhibits  sinnlarity  to  Paul's 
style  and  shows  his  versatility.  The  dift'erence  of  style 
between  this  an<l  Paul's  other  epistles  arises  lar£(ely  from 
the  difference  in  the  persons  achiressed  and  in  the  subject 
treated.  If  Paul  did  not  wi-ite  it  wlio  did  ?  Its  reception 
into  the  canon  im[)lie3  that  its  authorship  was  not  un- 
known. Belitzsch,  Grotius,  Stier  say  that  it  was  written 
by  Luke.  Jerome,  Calvin,  Erasmus  say  by  Clement  of 
Rome.  Tertullian  by  Barnal)as;  Luther,  Bleek,  Tholuck, 
De  Wette  say  by  Apollos.  Neander  and  Schaff'  say  it 
was  written  by  an  apostolic  member  of  ihe  Pauline 
scIiodI.  Most  of  the  Enirjlsh  critics  believe  that  Paul 
wrote  it. 

C(ino)im/t/.  If  apostolic  origin  and  canwuiciiy  were 
the  same  in  the  Primitive  cbui-ch,  the  latter  is  involved 
in  doubts  of  the  foi-mer.  Hence  Alford,  Tholuck,  ac- 
cord lower  authority  to  Hebrews,  saying  that  its  canon- 
icity  is  onl}'  t(t  be  maintained  on  internal  grounds.  But 
this  position  is  erroneous  liistorically.  The  epistle  is 
constantly  appealed  to    as  authoritative  by  the  same  au- 


190 

thors  who  question  its  ori2;iii.  Its  reception  into  tlie 
Pesliito  is  stronjrly  in  its  favor,  for  some  of  tlie  other 
ejiistles  were  omitted.  The  li^round  of  objection  to  its 
canonicity  in  tlie  West  wus  beciiuse  its  fiist  appearance 
was  in  the  East. 

To  whom,  addressed?  It  is  disputed  to  wliom  tlie  in- 
scription Txpo^'^ E^iacoo^  refers,  the  term  occurs  three  times 
New  Testament.  It  means  eithei*  Jews  as  distinojnished 
from  Gentiles,  or  Aramaic  speaking- Jewsas  distinguished 
from  Hellenists.  1.  Some  take  the  term  here  to  refer  in  the 
wide  sense  to  all  converted  Jews,  and  atti'ibute  to  tlie 
book  an  encyclical  and  not  an  epistolary  form.  2.  Some 
say  it  refei's  to  the  Jews  of  liome  on  the  ground  that  the 
Judean  errors  found  a  home  in  that  city.  This  may  accc^unt 
for  tlie  use  of  the  ejiistlo  by  Clement  of  Ivome,  and  tor  the 
tradition  in  Rome  that  it  wus  un-])anline.  8.  Again  it 
has  been  held  that  it  was  addressed  to  the  Jews  of 
Alexandria.  It  is  asserted  that  reference  nnide  to  the 
temjile  fiiiMiiture  in  chap.  9:  3-4,  could  not  be  applied  to 
the  temple  at  Jerusalem.  Hence  it  is  supposed  to  be  an 
Egyptian  temple  at  Ale.xandia  built  by  Jews.  The  altar 
of  incense  is  said  to  be  within  the  vail,  but  (Ex.  30)  it 
was  without.  Several  methods  of  evading  the  ditticulty 
are  suggested,  some  would  translate  duiuazY/ncov,  censer, 
and  understand  it  to  refer  to  the  censor  wiiich  the  high 
priest  carried  within  the  Holy  of  Holies  once  a  year. 
Moi-ever  duiuo.rrjjuov  is  used  Jbr  the  incense  altar  by  Philo 
and  Josephus.  Another  e.xplanation  is  that  the  altar  of 
incense  though  not  within  the  Holy  of  Holies  was  close- 
ly connected  therewith.  The  real  answer  is  that  the 
^^•riter  does  not  give  a  description  of  the  temple  furniture, 
but  its  symbolic  meaning  and  relation  to  the  Holy  of 
Holies.  Again  these  articles  of  furniture  disappeared 
at  the  Babylonish  captivity;  the  writer  must  have  been 
aware  of  this  fact  and  speaks  of  the  tabernacle  as  orig- 
inally furnished.  It  is  urged  that  7  :  27,  teaches  that  the 
Ijigh  [)riest  was  to  offer  a  daily  sacrifice  for  the  peoi)Ie,  in 
o])position  to  E.\.  30  :  10,  and  Lev.  16:  34,  which  say  that 
the  offering  was  made  once  a  year.  In  answer  to  tliis 
some  assert  that  the  language  is  liyperbolical  and  only 
means  frequently.     Some  suppose  that  xaffqixzijav  is  used 


191 

for  ^^an-ar/roc  perpetually,  i.  c.  year  after  year,  or  we  may 
suppose  rcfereuce  to  tlie  lii.^li  pi'iest  as  taking  ]>art  in 
sacrifices  niiide  hy  all  the  i)riests,  or  we  may  suppose 
that  the  resrular  acts  of  its  priesthood  are  attrihuted  to 
the  lii<j^h  priest  as  representative  of  tlie  whole  order,  or, 
finally,  wo  may  take  nc  aiiytiuEt:;,  for  the  heads  of  the  24 
courses  into  which  the  priests  were  divided,  who  offi- 
ciated in  turn. 

Time  and  place  of  composition.  The  epistle  must  have 
been  written  before  the  de-^trnetion  of  Jerusalem  for  the 
temple  and  city  were  still  standing  (7:  27.)  The  date 
must  he  fixed  as  late  as  possible  since  there  is  evidence 
that  time  had  e'apsed  sin(;e  thev  had  embraced  Chi'isti- 
anity,  (5:  12;  6:  10;  10:  32.)  The  diHiculties  spokiTn 
of  imply  that  the  faith  of  tho-.e  a(hlressed  had  been  sore- 
ly ti'ied.  The  date  whicli  best  agrees  with  the  tra- 
ditionary account  of-  the  epistle  is  A.  D.  63,  about  tlie 
end  of  Paul's  lirst  imprisonment  at  Home.  The  high 
priest  at  that  time  was  Annas  :  he  is  said  to  have  been  a 
man  of  fierce  temper  and  a  hater  of  the  Christians.  lie 
instituted  a  series  of  persecutions  and  put  James  to 
death.  These  jiersecutions  atibrded  an  occasion  for  this 
epistle. 

Analysis  of  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews. 

[From  Lange.] 

Part    I.  The    elevation    of  tlie   N.  T.    Mediator    as    son 
above  all  other  mediators  of  revelation   and  re- 
dem|itiou. 
Section  1.  Elevation  of  Jesus  Christ  above  the  prophets 
and  above  the  angels,  the  mediators  of  the 
old  covenant,  chap.  1  :  2. 
Section  2.  I'recminence    (»f  Jesus    Christ     above  the 
divinely  commissioned  servants  and  leaders 
of  Israel,  Moses  and  Josliua,  chap.  3:  4-13. 
Section  3.  Elevation  of  Jesus  Christ  above  Aaron  and 
his   hiirh   priestly  successors,  chap.  4:  14 — 
5:  10.^ 
I^art  II.  Elevation  of  Christ  as  eternal  priestly  King,  the 
counterpart  of  .Melchisedek. 


192 

Section  1.  Transition  to  tills  discussion  by  a  passn<ye 
of  censure,  Wiiiiiinir,  consolation  and  ex- 
liortation,  chap.  5  :  11  —  6  :  20. 

Section  2.  The  eternal  and  perfect  high  priesthood  of 
Jesus  Christ,  cha]).  7. 

Section  3.  This  priesthood   Christ  fulfills  as  heavenly 
Kin<T  iind  Mediatoi*  of  the    new   covenant 
predicted  in  the  C.  T.,  chap.  8. 
Part  III.  Preeminence  of  the  new  covenant  mediated  by 
Jesus  C'hrist. 

Section  ].  The  new  covenant  accomplishes  that  ap- 
proach and  nearness  to  (iod  which  the  Old 
symholiscd   and   ]»r(unised,  chap.  9-10  :   18. 

Section  2.  Exhortations,  warning's  iind  promises  sug- 
gested by  ])receding,  cdiap.  10:  19-39. 

Section  3.  A  survey  of  the  history  of  their  believing 
foi-cfathers,  chapter  11. 

Section  4.  An  appeal  summing  up  the   results  of  the 
preceding  historical  survey,  chap.  12. 
Conclusion  of  the  epistle,  chap.  13. 

SIXTH  GROUP. 

Catholic  Epistles.  Whij  so  called?  (1)  Encyclical 
writings  not  addressed  to  any  particular  chnrch  or  per- 
son, so  used  by  Clement  of  Alexandria,  Origen  and 
Eusebins,  (2)  Some  deiine  them  from  the  generality  of 
their  subjects.  (3)  Some  from  the  joint  authorship  of 
tjic  Apostles. 

Position  in  (he  canon.  (1)  They  are  said  to  be  confir- 
matory rather  than  additional.  They  are  also  supple- 
mentary ;  they  illnstrate  different  types  of  doctrine  or 
modes  of  presenting  the  Christian  system  of  truth 
by  Paul,  ffames,  Peter  and  John.  (2)  They  illustrate 
the  condition  of  the  clinrch  in  the  post-Pauline  period  ; 
the  peculiar  dangers  of  the  Jewish  Christians;  the  un- 
ity of  various  organizations;  the  anthdrity  of  the  Apos- 
tles and  of  the  church.  They  also  show  the  growth  of 
Gnostic  error  in  its  Jewish  ami  heathen  form. 

Epistle  of  Jamis.  Aulhorship  : — The  great  ques- 
tion with  respect  to  this  e[)istle  is  who  wrote  it.  It  is 
not  anonymous  1:  1,  but  which    James  wrote  it?     The 


193 

Weste-n  c^nrch  lield  Ihnt  it  was  James  the  Apostle,  son 
of    Alplieiis  and    brother    of  our    Lord.      The  Eastein 
cliiirch  hehl  that  tlie  writer  was  not  an  Apostle,  hnt    the 
son  of  •Jose[)h.      The  qnestion  is  hoth  e.\f<i^etical  ami  his- 
torical.    James  the  Elder,  son  of  Zeliedee  and  brother  of 
John,  who  is  spoken    of   Matt.  17:1;  iMk.  5:  37  ;    10  : 
35,    was   beheaded    by   TTerod  A.  D.  44.     (Aets  12:  1.) 
James  son  of  Alphens  was  the  Apostle,  and  son  of  Mary, 
(Matt.  27  :  50  ;    Mk.  15  :  40,)  sister  of  the  Viririn  (Jolin 
19  :  25.)     If  so    he   was    cousin  to  Jesns.     He    is    called 
6  nufio^  (.Mk,  15:  40,)  to  distinguish  him  from  the  son  of 
Zebt'dee.     James  the   brother    of   the    Lord.    s|iokc'n    of 
Matt.  13:55;   Mk.  6:3;  Gal.  1:19,  was    the  loader  of 
the  Jerusalem  ehiirch  ;   also  the  James  spoken  «)f  Aets 
12  and  calle<l  James  the  Just.     Is  James  son  of  AI|>lieu3 
the  s;ime  with  James  the   brother  <»f  Lord  ?     1.  Jerome 
and  iheLtitin  eliureh  held  the  Identity  Hypothesis  aijainst 
Ilelvidius    who    attacked    eeiibacy  on    the    fi^romul    that 
Christ  had  brothers.     This   theory  make.s   the    brethren 
of  our  Lord    cousins.      2.   The    Uterine    Ilyjtothesis    or 
Ilclvidiiin  which  makes  James    the    son    of  Josc])h   and 
Mary.      3.  The   Step-brother,  or  Epi]>hanian  IIy|)othe.si3 
which  makes  James  the  son  ot  Joseph   by  a  former  mar- 
I'iai^e.     This  is  u  qnestion  in   the  life  of  our  L(n"d  havin<' 
a  bearin<]j  on  the  ascetic  Romish  doctrines.     It    is  also  a 
qnestion  of  ecclesiastical    interest  to  determine    whether 
the  head  of  the  church  of  Jei-nsaiem  was  an    Apostle  or 
ir)t,    and    wln-ther    the    author    of    the    epistle    was    an 
Apostle.      1.    Identity    Ilyporhesis.       Ar<2;nments    in    its' 
fiivor.     (1)  Luke  knows  but    two  Jameses,  viz  :    James 
son  of  Zebedee  and  James  s(m  of  Alpheus.     In    Acts  7 
both  are  s'poken  of  in  verse  2,  the  son  of  Zebedee  is  put 
to  death,  in  12:  17  and  15  :  13,  Luke   refers    to  another 
Jfimes  without  distinction.      Answers:  LnivC  says  iioth- 
inij  about  other  Apostles   after  the    catalo<rne,    also    the 
jtrominencc  of  the  brother  of  the   Lord    was   such  that 
there  was  no  danger  of  beiuiij   mistaken   in  reference  to 
him.     The  balance  of  evidence  is  in  favor  of  the  identity 
of  the  Jameses.  (2)  The  antece<lent  probability  is  that  one 
who  exercised  Apc^stolic  authority  in  the   church  was  an 
Apostle.     This  is  confirmed  by  Gal.  1  :  19,    where    Paul 


194 

snys  that  he  saw  no  Apostle  except  James,  tlie  Lord's 
brother.  Paul  ar<i;nes  Iiis  iiidepeiuleiit  anthorir3-  because 
James  was  the  only  Apostle  he  saw.  Answers:  (a)  It 
is  said  that  tlie  obvious  exci^esis  makes  ihe  tirst  clause 
not  incliui'e  the  second,  bnt  that  it  is  only  added  as  an 
after  tlnMight,  i.  e.,  other  Apostles  than  Peter,  I  saw  not 
but  I  did  see  James.  This  lay-  the  emphasis  upon  the 
words  suppelid.  (b)  Meyer,  AHord,  Scliatt'  take  the 
word  Apostle  in  the  wide  sense  as  it  is  used  Acts  14,  to 
include  those  associated  with  the  Apostles.  (Vide 
"Alexander's  Primitive  church  otHces."  l>.  76.)  But 
Paul  arjxues  that  he  is  an  Apostle  of  Christ  because 
lie  did  not  derive  his  authority  from  those  who  held  it 
betorehim.  The  argument  determines  the  strict  sense 
in  which  the  word  is  used.  In  favor  of  rhe  supposition 
that  James  who  was  over  the  church  at  Jerusalem  was 
an  Ai)ostle.  Dr.  Alexander  says  :  (vide  Com.  Acts  21  : 
18,)  "  The  constitution  of  the  church  re(]uired  the  con- 
stant [iresence  of  an  A])ostle  while  the  oihers  were  en- 
gai^ed  perhaps  on  distant  missions,  this  responsible  and 
arduous  commission,  which  was  far  more  than  the  jjas- 
toral  care  of  any  single  church,  would  not  have  been  as- 
signed to  one  of  less  than  Apostolic  rank,  and  is  there- 
fore sufficient  proof  that  James  was  an  A|)OstIe." 
Wieseler  sees  a  distinction  between  James  spoken  of  in 
Gal.  1  :  19,  as  brother  of  our  Loi'd  and  the  one  men- 
tioned in  Gal.  2  :  9,  the  latter  according  to  him,  being  tlio 
son  of  Alpheus  and  leader  of  the  church  of  JeiMisalem. 
(3)  Argument  from  names.  In  Mk.  13:  55  certain  per- 
sons James,  Joses,  Simon  and  Jude  are  called  ''l)rethren 
of  our  Lord."  In  the  lists  of  Apostles  we  tind  three  of 
these  names  occurring  in  the  same  order.  The  argu- 
ment is  not  merely  from  the  identity  of  nam.es  which 
might  be  accidental,  but  Matt.  23  :  50  ;  Mark.l5:40, 
mention  Mary  Magdaleneand  Mary  the  mother  of  James 
and  Joses  to  distinguish  her  from  rhe  Virgin,  If  these 
were  not  tlic  same  men,  there  must  have  been  two  sets 
qf  brothers  with  the  same  names  in  the  family  circle  and 
no  means  of  distinguishing  them.  This  conclusion; 
bears  equally  agair.st  the  uterine  and  stei)-brother  hy- 
pothesis.    The'exegesis  of  Jno.  19  :    24  has   been   ques- 


195 


tioned.  It  lins  l)ccn  dispose  1  of  hy  the  Pci^liito  In-  in- 
sei'tiuii'  yju  after  "  tlie  sister  of  his  mother,"  and  hofore 
"  iMary  t>f  Cleoi)as,"  thus  mukinir  four  women  instead  of 
three.  'J'lie  nnnamed  one  wonhl  he  Salome  and  tiie  sons 
of  Zehedee  wonhl  he  iirst-eon'^ins  of  Christ,  and  Maiy 
wife  of  Alphens,  mother  of  James  and  Joses,  would  ho 
left  ont  of  onr  qiestimi.  This  exeijesis  is  suppoi-ted  hy 
the  ditticnhy  <U'  coneeivinij:  of  two  sisters  havini^  the 
same  name.  Some  re<r;in|  this  sis  fatal,  otliers  as  not  nn- 
nsnal  in  th.eEist.  Lan!i;e  avoids  tlie  ditHcuItv  l)y  saying 
the  rehuionshi|>  was  thi'oiiij;h  the  fatiiers,  Alphens  was  a 
brother  of  Joseph,  or  as  some  say  .Mury  the  wife  of 
Ah^dieus  nniy  have  heen  a  sister  of  Joseph.  The  cnmn- 
lation  of  the  ar<i'iiment  presents  tl.e  foMowniir  :  1.  TItg 
identity  of  the  nanu's  of  the  liretiii'en  of  our  Lord  with 
three  of  tlie  Apostles.  2.  Identity  of  names  of  the 
brethren  of  onr  Lord  and  Apostles  with  two  sons  of 
Mary.  3,  Identity  of  names  of  the  hnshand  of  Alai'y 
and  father  of  two  of  the  Apostles.  4.  Mai'}-  was  a 
sister  or  a  sister-in-law  of  the  mother  of  Jesus  and  the 
brethren  <;f  our  Lord  were  his  coiisins. 

Objections  to  the  Identity  iryi)othesis.  L  It  takes 
adtA(fo^  in  the  figui'ativo  sense.  This  wide  sense  of  tho 
term  is  neither  unnatural  nor  unusual,  2.  The  term 
"first-born"  as  found  in  ALitt.  1:  2'),  does  not  iui|)ly 
that  there  were  any  children  hoi-n  suhse(piently.  3.  John 
7  :  3  refers  to  an  event  si.\  months  prcNious  to  the  cruci- 
fi.vion  when  Ins  brethren  did  not  believe  (>u  him.  This 
is  the  stroui^est  e.\e<retical  point  on  this  s)  le  of  the  ques- 
tion: Ans.  (ii)  The  word  "brethren  "may  not  iiere  refer  to 
those  who  were  Apostles  for  no  names  are  mentioned. 
Joses  and  his  sisters  were  included  amoui^  "the  breth- 
ren," and  mi2:ht  have  been  those  referred  to  as  not  be- 
lieving  <)u  llim.  (h)  Tlic  exi)rcssiou  "not  believe" 
maybe  taken  relatively.  They  ur<2je  Him  to  ii^o  to  Jei'u- 
salem  o[)enly  and  make  a  public  assumption  of  |)olitica! 
power,  lie  refuses.  This  idea  is  not  forced  into  tho 
context  hut  is  necessary  to  explain  liis  refusing  and  after- 
wards ijoing.  The  term  "  l)retliren  "  appears  to  be  used 
convertibly  with  "  Apostles,'"  as  for  example  Acts  1 :  14 
where  "  brethren  "  denotes  the  most  tra3ted  circle  of  the 


196 


Apostles.  4.  The  "  bretliren  "  are  said  to  be  distin- 
ffnishod  from  tlie  Apostles  in  Mk.  3  :  31  ;  Jno.  2:  12; 
Acts  1  :  14,  but  those  desiirnnted  as  brethren  here,  may 
not  constitute  a  class  achled,  but  emphasize  a  number 
who  were  of  the  12.  5.  The  brethren  are  ahva^-s  intro- 
duced in  connection  with  the  mother  of  Jesus  as  though 
they  were  one  family  and  not  liis  discii)Ies.  Some  sup- 
pose that  Joseph  died  soon  after  Christ  was  12  years  ohl, 
and  Mary  went  to  live  with  the  wife  of  Cleopas.  Lauije 
thiid<s  that  Aiplieiis,  brother  of  Joseph,  died  early  and 
liis  wife  and  sons  lived  with  Joseph  and  Mary  or  that 
both  husbands  died  and  their  families  lived  to<ii:ether. 
This  idea  is  not  inconsistent  with  the  poverty  of  the 
family  nor  does  it  require  an  unnatural  renunciation 
of  Jier  children  by  the  mother  of  the  brethren.  They 
are  connected  with  the  Viriifin  because  of  their 
relation  to  Christ.  The  fact  that  Jesus  committed  his 
mother  to  John  is  not  an  arii^unicnt,  for  these  wei-e  his 
near  relatives  according;  to  either  iiypothesis.  (4.)  For 
discussions  on  the  infiuence  of  the  belief  in  the  perpetual 
virijinity  of  Mary,  vide  Alexander  on  M  k.  6:  3.  8cliaff, 
Bihliothica  Sacra  Oct.  1864.  llengstenberg  on  the  Greek 
and  Koman  churches. 

2.  Uterine  Hypothesis.  It  is  based  on  the  difficulties 
found  in  the  othei-  two  and  takes  the  woi*d  adsAfo^  in  its 
most  common  use.  The  slronirest  passaii^e  considered 
exeo;eticaIly  in  favor  of  this  theory  is  Gal.  1  :  19. 

3.  The  Stei)-brother  Hypothesis,  It  has  two  forms. 
1.  That  of  a  Levirate  marriage  of  Joseph  with  the  widow 
of  his  brotlier  Cleoi)as,  or  2.  an  ordinary  marriage  prior 
to  his  marriage  with  the  Virgin.  Patristic  testimony  is 
doubtful.  Palestinian  tradition  was  broken  uj)  i>y  dis- 
turbances. Ilegisippus  says  that  James  the  brf)ther  of 
our  Lord  was  an  Apostle,  placed  over  the  church  at 
Jerusalem  and  was  surnamed  the  "  Just ''  by  all.  Origen 
quote3  the  ei>istle  as  written  by  an  Apostle.  The  Alex- 
andrine tradition  is  in  favor  of  identifying  James  the 
son  of  Alpheus  with  tlie  brother  of  our  Lord.  What  be- 
came of  "James  of  Alpheus?"  if  he  is  not  the  same  as 
Jame8  of  Jerusalem,  even  tradition  knows  nothing  of 
bim. 


197 

Canonkihj.  Besides  references  to  tlie  Catholic  Epistles 
as  n  whole,  references  are  iuhiressed  in  Clement  of  l{oine, 
and  Hernias  to  James  2:  7;  4:  7-12.  Irenrens  has  some 
sti'ikinij:  references  to  the  ej^istle,  althongh  ohjection  is 
made  that  he  does  not  mention  James  hy  name  as  ho 
does  other  wi-iters.  Athanasins  qnote.s  the  epistle  hy 
name.  Clement  of  Alexandria  says  there  are  seven 
catliolic  epistles  and  quotes  this  one.  Origen,  Knsel)iu3 
and  Jerome  all  quote  it,  namiuir  the  author.  Tradition 
of  the  Syrian  church  is  uniform  and  emphatic.  The 
early  douhts  are  accounted  for  on  the  foIIo\vin<>^ grounds. 
(1.)  There  was  doul)t  as  to  the  writer.  (2.)  It  did  not 
afford  material  for  contro\  ersial  use.  (3.)  It  is  addressed 
only  to  a  part  of  the  church,  and  its  doctrinal  |)osiiif*n 
was  nnsunderstood.  Douhts  as  to  canonicity  which  arose 
at  the  Reformation  were  on  internal  grounds.  Luther 
said  it  contradicted  Paul,  althouiih  he  ascrihed  the  ejiistle 
to  James.  But  the  writer  takes  no  notice  of  Paul  ov  of 
any  Autinomian  controversy,  hence  we  niay  suppose  that 
it  was  written  earlier  than  I'aul's.  Again  it  is  ohjected 
that  James  is  not  evangelical,  that  he  makes  too  little  of 
Christ.  But  he  refers  the  same  word  xofno^  to  both  God 
and  Christ.  lie  teaches  that  salvation  I'cqui res  faith  and 
appeals  to  Christian  motives,  (1  :  36;  2:15;  4:  17.) 
The  writer  stands  like  Peter  the  representative  of  the  O. 
T.  dispensation  :  he  w-is  stationed  in  Jerusalem  to  keep 
the  door  ojicu  to  the  Jews. 

'J)'me.  There  are  two  views  as  to  the  time  of  its  com- 
position, 1.  Those  who  see  in  it  a  desire  to  counteract  a 
false  interpretation  of  Paul's  (htctrine  of  justitication, 
(chap.  2:  14,)  and  who  see  a  reference  to  the  destruction 
of  Jerusalem  in  5  :  1,  and  an  allusion  to  the  name  "  Chris- 
tian" in  2:  7,  argue  in  favor  of  62  A.  D.  2.  Those  who 
liold  that  the  epistle  could  not  have  been  written  by 
James  after  the  council  of  Jerusalem,  without  an  allusion 
to  its  decision  and  because  Gentile  Christians  do  not  yet 
appear  to  be  recognized,  are  in  favor  of  45  A.  1).  as  the 
time  of  its  composition.  .S'/y/c.  The  e|iistle  is  written 
in  remarkably  pure  Hellenistic  Greek.  In  tliis  respect 
it  surpa-ses  all  other  books  of  the  N.  T.  Fersons  ad- 
dressed.    Tlie   twelve   tribes    in   dispersion.      1.  Literal, 


198 

unconvertecl  Jew?,  Lnrdnei".  2.  Je\vs,convertO(l  iiiul  iiii- 
C(Mivc'rte(l,  Grotiiis.  3.  Spiritual,  Jewish  nnd  Gentile 
Cliristians  ns  oiiposiiiir  partios.  4.  Bost  Jewisli  Christians, 
Seliniid.  The  epistle  Jewish  in  form  ot'address,  fornudas 
o["  Jewish  oaths.  Annointinif  hy  ehlers  and  Jewish 
faidts  correcte(h  Hence  christian  1 :  12;  2;7andwh()lo 
book  re2;ai"ded  Christian.  Sonie  h)cali/ce  and  make  them 
Christians  of  Palestine  or  Antioch  or  Asia  Minor.  But 
common  view  is  tlnit  Jewisli  Christians  in  i^eneral,  who 
looked  to  James  as  their  leader.  They  were  persecnted 
by  unconverted  Jews  1  :  2-4;  5:  7-11.  Comj).  Ileh.  10: 
24;  12:  1-13.  They  were  in  danf^er  of  !Ov^in<i^  faith  and 
fallinic  uway,  1  :  5-8;  5:11-12;  Ileh.  10:  35  fori,n-tting 
God's  pni'|iose,  1  :  1-12,  oppressed  by  the  rich,  2:  1-18; 
6  :  16  and  meaning  of  the  ritdi  differently  nnilerstood 
nccordinii;  to  the  iheoi'v  of  address  of  the  ei»istlo.  If 
Ciiristiaii  readers  the  reference  is  to  social  ]ireferenoG 
within  thechurch,  AViessinger.  The  rich  aredistinirnished 
liere  from  the  believers,  llntlen.  Gentile  Christians, 
Schwegler,  Synibolical  as  the  rich  and  pooi*  in  spii'it, 
Lange.  The  rich  are  the  Judaizers  the  jtoor  the  Gentile 
Christians.  Other  faults  relying  upon  a  dead  faith  1  : 
22  27.  Fanaticism,  1:  20,  wrongful  pi-eferences  and  mean- 
ness, 2  :  2.  Falsehood  and  swearing,  cha]).  3.  Conteir 
tiousness,  3:  13  10.  Evil  speaking,  4  :  11.  Envy,  oppres- 
sion and  even  gross  sins  chap.  4-0.  Olijcct  and  churacler 
of  episllc.  Ethical  and  ]>i-actieaf  against  a  barren  chrif^- 
tianity  without  good  woi-ks  and  against  dispersion.  In 
its  relation  to  O.  T.  the  first  effect  of  Christianity  was  to 
establish  its  unity  with  O.  T.  I'eter  and  James.  Next 
came  the  effort  to  establish  its  conti-ast  to  and  superiority 
over  O.  T.,  Paul  and  John.  Under  unit}'  came  the  two 
relations  to  law  and  to  ])i-ophec3-.  James  re])i'esents 
Christianity  as  \\\q  perfect  Inn.  The  O.  T.  law  is  fulfilled 
only  in  it.  Hence  the  ethical  side  as  in  the  Gospel  of 
Matthew.  Peter  shows  the  correspondence  with 
prophecy  and  complete  fulfillment  in  the  future.  See 
Sell  mid  Biblical  Theology  of  N".  T.  p.  334.  Lange'3 
James  p.  6.  Three  views  of  the  relation  of  Judaism. 
1.  The  lowest  extreme,  Sclnvegler.  Thoroughly  Ebion- 
istic,  void  of  all  later  Christology  in  resting  on  the   law 


199 

as  perpetual  and  savino;.  At  the  same  time  eiideavorincr 
to  associate  stmie  Pauline  ideas  wirli  this.  Hence  too  mild 
for  tlie  Apostolic  sta^e  of  the  controversy  hut  very  late. 
2.  Neander  dwells  on  the  ol)S(;nrity  of  Pauline  theoloL'^y, 
which  l)ecame  that  of  the  church.  No  allusioiis  to  the 
council  at  Jerusaleiri  or  the  whole  controvei-sy  with 
Judaizers.  The  writer  has  no  knowIcd<re  of  T'siul  norof 
jHij  ahuse  of  his  doctrines  of  faith.  Contemplates  wiints 
of  Jews.  A  dead  orthodoxy  introduced  hy  I'harisaism 
into  the  church.  See  I*lantin<^  and  Training;  p.  "204.  So 
Christolosxy  very  |u"iniitiye  and  undeyeloped,  and  henco 
very  early.  Date  assigned  about  A.  D.  45.  So  Scliatf, 
Alford,  Staidey.  3.  Common  theory.  Accounts  for 
peculiai'ities  not  because  the  writer  was  an  undeveloped 
Christian  but  because  idthongh  knowing  and  holding  the 
common  Pauline  faith,  his  purpose  was  to  meet  certain 
cri'oneous  tendencies  ami  )>i'escnt  a  certain  view  of  the 
Gospel  in  his  own  way,  to  warn  his  (nvn  f)eoi)le  against 
the  vices  of  surrounding  Jews  and  against  a  dead  formal- 
ism, lie  urges  the  Gospel.  New  and  higher  law,  and 
urges  them  not  to  give  w;iy  to  prevalent  famiticisms  but 
adhere  to  their  profession.  The  ethical  purjjose  explains 
lack  of  development  in  doctrinal  starement.  These  taken 
for  granted.  Not  denied  oi-  unknown.  See  Dorner. 
]-*erson  of  C'hi'ist  inti'oduction,  [>.  (Jo.  Sehmid  p.  360. 
Lange  pp.  25-29.  Van  Oosterzee.  Wiessenger  is  extreme, 
says  the  object  is  to  counteract  the  Autinomian  al)use  of 
I'aul's  docti'ine.  Terms  refer  to  Paul  1:3;  Rom.  5  :  3; 
4:  1;  7:  23;  2:  23;  Gal.  3:2-25;  Ileb.  11:  31.  P:s- 
pecially  diii'erent  ideas  of  faith,  woi'ks  and  jnstitication 
show  tlie  direct  reference  to  Paul.  But  abuse  of  J'aui's 
doctrine  not  the  sin  of  the  Jews.  The.  rdalions  of  the 
teac/unt/  of  ike  cpisllc  of  P'taVs.  Faith  a  practi- 
cal liviuii:  principle  2:  17-2G.  Its  object  God  and 
Christ  2:'  19;  1:1;  2:  1,  5,  7,  8.  jlistirieatii)n  2: 
14-26.  Paul's  word  reckoned  for  righteousness  2  :  23. 
A  nd  1>\'  works  not  by  faith  alone.  But  works  are  not  op- 
posed to  faith,  but  manifest  and  evidence  faith.  Not  of 
the  law  but  proceeding  frcnn  the  new  princii)Ie  of  life 
which  is  from  Chi-ist.  Acknowledges  sin  in  all  2  :  23  ; 
3:2;    5  :   15,  16,   20.      Relation  "to    Sermon     on    the 


coo 

ATonnt.  Same  as?ertions  arc  made  of  absence  of  doc- 
trine ;  both  assnme  tbe  trntb.  More  albisions  in  James 
to  GosjieU  than  in  any  otlier  epistles.  Brcitber  of  our 
Lord.  Matthew  desiirncd  for  Jewish  readers.  Point  of 
view— fnltillment  of  law  in  Christiainty.  Sermon  on  the 
Mount  the  hi^cher  spiritual  fufilbnent  of  the  hiw.  Di- 
rected against  pervei-sion  of  the  hiw  as  rooted  in  Phar- 
isaism. The  connection  causal.  Matthew  mucii  fuller 
in  revelation  of  Christ.  Jn  reference  to  prnj)hocy,  in 
indication  of  the  abolition  of  the  external  pai't  of  law. 
But  like  James,  has  in  view  the  unity  of  the  new  cov- 
enant with  the  old.  For  striking  details  see  Schmid,  p. 
365.  And  as  Christianity  a  law,  so  God  viewed  as  a 
Law-giver  and  Judge,  but  Christology  though  not  dwelt 
on  is  the  sjime  in  outline.  This  new  law  is  brought 
about  by  the  revelation  through  Christ.  Christ  is  the 
Lord  of  Glory.  E(p)al  authority  is  ascribed  to  Ilim  with 
God,  1  :  1.  The  title  of  Judge  is  {ip])lied  both  to  God 
and  Christ  and  term  Lord  to  both,  (Schtnid  )).  344,  346, 
360) — hence  neither  in  ignorance  of  Paul,  Acts  lo.  nor 
aL'ainst  uerverters  of  Paul,  but  pre-supj»oses  him. 
Date.  This  is  involved  in  the  |)revious  question.  If  1. 
Post-apostolic.  If  2.  As  Keauder  about  A.  D.  45.  If 
S.  The  diites  in  the  life  of  James.  Wiesinger  argues 
from  refei-ence  as  above  to  Paul.  But  others  from  pre- 
supjtosed  knowledge  of  Christianity  and  the  time  needed 
for  the  development  of  vices  and  tem[»tations.  Condi- 
tion of  Palestine  about  62  A.  D.  Persecution  from  the 
Jews.  Zealotry  and  turbulence.  This  the  historical  point 
of  attachment  for  Hebrews — James  (and  Lange  includes 
1st  Peter.)  Addressed  to  Jewish  Christians,  encourag- 
ing them  to  fidelity  under  trial.  The  idea  of  Neander 
involves  diiiiculty  of  ascribing  it  to  the  limited  period 
before  the  council  at  Jerusalem.  This  doctrinal  peculi- 
arit}'  of  James,  whereas  his  iniiuence  and  position  con- 
tinued. Agreeing  but  distinct.  Keeping  (b)or  open 
for  converts  from  Jews.  Xot  prior  but  i)araliel.  Local 
allusions  1:6;  3:6,  12;  5  :  17,  19;  1  :  11,  etc. 

First  Epistle  of  Pktkr.  Three  stages  of  history.  1. 
Theg(»spel  Acts  1  :  12.  Removal  toAntioch  and  later  life. 
Epistles  and  tradition.     Personal  traits  and  adaptation  to 


201 


his  special  work.  Tradition  is  of  two  forms.  The  old 
form  relates  to  Ins  d«:;atli.  The  later  t'orin  fills  tip  sjiaee 
in  N.  T.  recoi'd-*.  Acts  12-15  ijive  account  of"  him  about 
the  time  44-50  A.  I).  Enseliins  and  Jerome  say  he  foun- 
ded the  einirch  in  Antioi-h  and  went  to  Rome  in  the 
time  of  ('laiidins,  who  died  54  A.  D.  They  also  say  that 
he  was  bisli()[»  there  '25  years,  Imt  Acts  11  :  19  Barnabas 
as  in  Antocli.  iSilence  of  Paul.  Panl  in  Rome  in  Gl  A. 
D.  NcMir  close  of  Panl's  life  wrote  2nd  Tim.,  and  sil- 
ence in  all  letters  from  time  of  impi'isonment.  Ai>-reea 
with  tradition  that  Teter  <i:oes  to  the  Jews.  Jerome's 
tradition  that  he  was  bishop  in  Rome  is  based  throni^h 
Clement  Ale.xandrinus  on  Justin.  2.  Origen  says  that 
Peter  was  in  Rome  in  the  time  of  Nero.  That  Jie 
preached  in  Asia  Minor,  1  l*eter  1  :  1.  Commonly  snp- 
posed  that  he  had  no  pei'sonal  acquaintance  with  the 
chnrch  addressed.  3.  That  he  was  in  the  Pai'thian  Em- 
pire—  Babylon.  This  is  neu;.  ar-jf.,  since  it  was  out  of 
the  way  of  N.  T.  notice.  An  ellipsis,  1  Peter  5  :  13. 
Suppositions  (1)  Peter's  wife — based  on  1  Cor.  9:  5.  (2) 
Chnrch  or  dispersion — Babylon  ?  First.  Old  idea — 
Rome,  but  no  indication  of  syndjolic  sense.  Rome  not 
called  Babylon  nntil  after  the  Apocalypse.  Peter  not  in 
Rome  so  lon<;.  Second,  Common  literal  .sense.  Many 
Jews  there.  Centei*  of  Judaic  life  in  the  Eist.  Accords 
with  rajiid  fljpowth  of  the  church  in  the  East.  Tradition 
Bays  that  he  was  martyi-ed  in  Rome  near  the  time  of 
Paul.  No  other  traditio'i  of  his  death.  Same  causes 
led  to  his  arrest  as  to  Paul's.  Clement  says  Rome  "  ap- 
pointed the  place  of  his  glory."  ]*a|)ias  says  Mark  com- 
posed  in  Jiome  under  Peter;  Dionysius  says  in  Corinth. 
It  is  objected  that  it  makes  i*eterand  I'aul  go  to  Italy  to- 
gether and  are  martyred  together,  but  only  co:npares  the 
two.  Iren<neus  states  that  the  mode  was  l)y  crucifixion  ; 
Origen  says  with  head  downwarcls.  Caius,  graves  of  l)()th^ 
even  known.  Predicted  Jno.  21  ;  2nd  Pet.  1  :  14.  The 
tradition  not  accounted  for  l)y  thegrowth  of  primacy-here 
older.  A  design  of  the  early  ajiologists  to  assiniilato 
Peter  and  Paul.  So  Neander,  Schaff,  Alford.  Rrodcrs 
addressed.  The  elect  strangers  of  the  diaspora  in  Pontus 
Galutia,    Cappadocia,    Asia   and    Bythinia.       Churches 


202 


founded  by  Panl  and  his  assistants  in  Asia  Minor.  Who? 
1.  Literal  sense.  Jewish  Cliristians  of  the  dispersion 
c.xelnsively  intended.  So  of  the  Fathers  and  ohler  inter- 
preters ;  also  Wiess  and  Lan_i>:e.  These  jM-innirily  th()ii<i|;h 
not  excludii)2:  Genlile  Chi-istians,  DeWette  and  Smith. 
Wiess  iirgnes  (1)  Literal  niejininu;  of  the  word.  (2)  Old 
Testament  alinsionsand  ideas.  Gal.  105  verses,  28  quo- 
tations. Eph.  only  has  7  and  Gal.  13.  (3)  Peter  'the 
Apostle  to  the  Cirennicihion.  Iian<re  insists  on  this  in  his 
combination  of  Ileb.,  Jas.  and  Peter.  2.  Wiesen<rer 
and  Alford  take  diasjjora  in  symbolical  sense.  Chris- 
tians in  general,  because  of  this  use  of  it  in  Chap.  2:  11. 
And  hence  in  their  opinion  no  unmi.xed  Jewish  churches 
could  be  found.  See  Sleiger's  History  of  the  Churches, 
in  Alford's  [irolegomenu  and  character  of  the  epistle, 
1:  14-16;  2:  lOfS:  6;  4:3.  Cavoviciftj.  More  testi- 
mony for  canonicitv  than  for  almost  any  otlier  ejjistle  in 
K.  T.  Alluded  to  in  2  Peter  3  :  1.  Clement  of  Rome, 
Polyearp,  Fajjias,  Tertuilian  quote  it,  some  by  naming; 
some  without  naming  its  author. 

Dafe.  Nothing  deiinite  is  known  as  to  the  date.  The 
general  indication  from  the  tei'in,  d'.aar.ooa  is  that  it  was 
before  A.  D.  70,  because  alter  the  distruction  of  Jerusa- 
lem all  believers  were  outoTiona.  But  some  hold  that  it 
must  have  been  at  a  later  date  from  Chap.  4  :  7,  where 
bespeaks  of  the  end  being  at  hand.  The  expectation  of 
the  near  coming  of  Christ,  persecutions  as  yet  in  the  fu- 
ture, references  made  to  the  yainanaza,  all  seem  to  place 
its  date  in  Apostolic  times.  In  CJIiap.  1  :  1,  reference  is 
made  to  the  churches  of  Asia  which  were  founded  by 
Paul  between  54  and  57  A.  D.,  hence  the  epistle  must 
have  been  written  later  than  57.  The  date  of  the  doc- 
ument is  decided  by  most  commentators  on  the  suppos- 
ition fhat  Peter  had  read  tlie  epistles  of  Paul,  at  least 
Ephes.  and  Col.,  Hug  and  DeWette  place  its  date  at  Q'o 
or  (37  A.  D.  Thiersch  63  or  64.  Bleek  assigns  to  it  a 
later  date. 

Design.  The  object  of  the  epistle  must  be  learned 
from  the  character  of  its  contents.  1.  It  was  to  conifort 
and  strengthen  Christians  in  periods  of  [tersecution.  2, 
To  enforce  practical  and  spiritual  duties  which  included 


203 

obodience  to  the  civil  aiitiioritiesi.  3.  To  warn  tlioni 
ai2';iiiist  temptations  arisiinij  out  ot'tlieir  position,  especially 
iieatlien  piMctices.  4.  To  i-eniove  all  donhts  as  to  tlio 
Boiindness  and  completeness  of  the  religious  system  which 
tliev  had  received. 

Second  Epistlh  of  Peter.  The  ficnaincness  mul  coiinn- 
kilji  ot"  no  writinijj  in  the  N.  T.  have  been  so  much  ques- 
tioned as  those  of  this  epistle.  Critics  cannot  auree  in 
accoiintiniij  tor  its  inseitioii  into  the  canon,  Beifinnin<^ 
with  the  external  testimony  we  find  that  it  was  acknowl- 
edi^ed  as  a  |)art  of  the  canon  in  the  fourth  century. 
Jerome  considered  it  ijjenuine  ol)serviii<>;,  however,  that 
the  epistle  was  held  liy  some  to  be  spni-ioiis  on  account 
of  the  difference  of  its  style  from  1  Peter,  Ensebins 
reckons  it  anmnii'  the  ayTchyoiava.  Orii^en,  while  men- 
tioninij  the  donbtthat  prevailed  as  to  its  canonicity,  cites 
it  in  several  passages  as  a  [tart  of  the  N.  T,  The  l*eshito 
and  Muratori  Ciinon  (h)  not  contain  it.  Internal  testi- 
mony. Against  the  argnnjent  tVom  internal  testimony 
for  its  canonicity,  we  have  three  classes  of  objections, 
1.  Those  arising  out  of  comi>ai-ison  with  1  Peter,  (a) 
We  find  that  the  jtersons  addressed  in  this  epistle  are 
diflerent  and  ditferently  related  to  the  writer.  In  tho 
first  they  are  addressed  as  being  persecuted,  in  second 
heresies  are  sjioken  of.  Answer:  Tlii^re  is  no  real  dilii. 
cully  since  Peter  couid  write  on  ditforeut  subjects  at 
different  times,  (b)  Tbc  objection  from  alleged  ditt'er- 
ences  in  doctrine.  In  1  P,  we  have  the  death  and  resur- 
rection and  second  advent  of  Christ  treated  of.  It  is 
alleged  that  £/-^c  i^  the  leading  idea  of  the  Hrst  while 
£-^j'i/^y«Trc  i>redominates  in  the  latter ;  but  there  is  no  in- 
consistency since  each  epistle  is  consistent  with  its  own 
plan,  (c)  The  differences  in  style  wei'e  early  objected  to; 
but  this  diversity  is  not  important  and  is  (.'ounterbalanceJ 
by  obvious  coincidences.  2.  A  second  elass  of  objec- 
tions is  urged  on  the  ground  of  the  resemblances  of 
this  epistle  to  Jude,  second  chapter  and  Jude  e.xhibit  so 
remarkable  an  agreement  that  tlie  dependence  of  the  one 
upon  the  other  is  undeniable.  Such  a  resemblance  may 
be  explained  on  the  following  hy|(otheses,  (a)  That  both 
drew  from  the  same  ancient  Jewish  books,  (b)  That 
there  was  a  communication  between  the  two  writers  and 


204 

an  agreement  on  tlio  use  of  terms,  (c)  That  a  forjrcr,  a 
pseinio- Peter,  draws  verbally  yet  eliimsily  from  Jnde. 
(d)  Tliat  one  writer  wrote  witli  the  otlier  in  his  mind  or 
at  hand,  (e)  The  common  ojiinion  is  that  Jnde  wrote 
first,  for  liis'  descriptions  ai-e  more  (general  and  some  ex- 
pressions of  2  P.  need  the  inter|iretaTion  of  Jnde.  3. 
Tlie  third  class  of  objections  are  drawn  from  the  ejiistle 
itself  (a)  Neandcr  l)ases  an  objection  on  the  nse  b}'  the 
wi-iter  of  tlie  name  Peter  and  his  Apostolic  authority,  and 
attribntes  is  to  the  an.xiety  of  a  tori>;er.  (b)  It  is  allci^ed 
that  3:  15  assumes  that  a  collection  of  Paul's  wi'itinijs 
was  already  circnlatinij  in  the  clinrch.  Answer:  But 
the  reference  does  not  say  that  snch  a  collection  was  com- 
plete. Referring  to  his  approaching  death,  the  writer 
assigns  as  grounds  of  assurance  for  believers,  his  own 
testimony  as  eye-witness  of  the  tr;,insfiguration.  Neander 
says  he  ought  to  liave  rell'rred  to  Christ's  resurrection. 
It  has  been  admitted  by  most  critics  to  have  an  A[»ostoIic 
tone. 

Jude's  Epistle.  Authorship  avd  CiuiovicHii.  That  the 
writer  of  tliis  epistle  is  the  same  Jude  spoken  of  (Matt, 
13:  55;  ?dls.  6:  3,)  as  the  bi-other  of  our  Loid,  depends 
on  the  truth  or  the  Identity  Ilyiiothesis,  The  epistle  is 
one  of  the  ai^rehjoneva^  it  is  wanting  in  the  Peshiro,  the 
earliest  positive  reference  to  it  is  m  the  Muratoi-i  canon, 
Origen,  Tertullian  and  Eusebius  quote  it.  Objections  to 
its  authenticity  have  been  i-aised  on  internal  grounds, 
liefercnce  is  made  in  vs.  17  and  18,  to  the  sayings  of  the 
Apostles.  From  this  some  argue  that  it  must  have  l)een 
written  after  Apostolic  times,  and  is  therefore  a  forgery. 
Also  in  vs.  14  and  15  the  A|K)cryphal  Book  of  Enoch  is 
quoted.  Answer  :  It  is  said  the  book  of  Enoch  is  of 
late  date,  some  assigning  it  100  A.  D.  It  is  urged  that 
Jnde  by  this  quotation  gives  authority  to  Apocryphal 
writings  ;  but  he  only  says  that  the  prediction  contained 
in  tiie  book  was  a  f»ropliecy  of  Enoch.  Again  it  is 
argued  that  verse  9  contains  statements  not  fo'.iud  in  tho 
O^T.  The  Targum  of  Jonathan  says  that  •'  the  body  of 
Moses"  is  mentioned  allegorically  for  the  law  given  to 
Moses. 

Date.  It  must  have  been  written  late  since  it  de- 
nounces tlie  same  errors  alluded  to  in   2nd  Peter.     It  is 


205 

siipposed  to  have  been  written  (lnrin2^  tlie  interval,  be- 
tween tbe  death  of  Peter  and  the  destrnetiiMi  of  Jerusa- 
lem, because  it  contains  no  reference  to  the  hitter,  l^rob- 
ably  it  was  aibh-essed  to  the  same  readers  in  Asia  Minor 
to  whom  2nd  I'cter  was  aihlressed,  witli  a  view  to  sup- 
port and  stienj^then  tlie  exiiortations  and  warnings  of 
Peter. 

Writings  of  Joiix.  Tliese  writin<;s  represent  a  new 
stage  (»f  N.  T.  literature.  The  time  of  writing  is  said  to 
be  20  or  oO  years  afrer  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem.  It 
is  clear  that  John  was  in  Ephesus  during  a  part  of  liis 
life,  lie  issiioken  of  in  Acts  15  :  G  as  being  in  Jerusa- 
lem, but  does  not  appear  again  in  tlie  N.  T.  until  in  hi.^ 
own  writings.  Some  say  that  during  this  interval  he 
was  in  I>al>ylon  with  Peter;  others  assert  that  he  was  in 
Ephesns  from  the  errors  spoken  of  in  his  epistles  which 
corres|iond  with  those  in  the  church  of  that  place.  It 
is  said  that  he  remained  in  Jerusalem  until  the  death  of 
Mary  the  mothei'  of  our  Lord  41  A.  D.  Jerome  says  he 
went  East  tt)  India.  i\,>lycrates  asserts  that  John  died 
at  Ephesns.  Jei-ome  [tuts  his  death  at  101  A.  D.  ;  Eiise- 
bius  at  100.  The  prevalent  opinion  is  that  Revelation 
was  written  in  the  time  of  Domitian  and  the  Gc)spel  and 
E[)istles  were  wi-itten  at  a  later  date. 

First  Ei'IStlic  of  John.  Gcniiinevess  and  Canon- 
iciti/.  The  external  testimony  begins  with  the  contem- 
poraneous writings  of  Polyeai'p  who  says  in  the  word.s 
of  John  :  "  For  every  one  that  confesseth  not  that  Jesus 
Christ  is  come  in  the  Hesli  is  antichrist."  Papias  ac- 
coriJing  to  the  testimony  of  J^^nsebins  quoted  from 
"former  Epistle  of  Joiin.  ('lement  of  Alexandria,  Ter- 
tnllian,  J  uncus,  the  Peshito  and  Muratori  canon  all 
have  evidence  as  to  the  canonicity  of  this  epistle.  Internal 
evidence  is  based  on  its  resemblance  to  the  Gospel  of 
John.  Both  range  of  thought  and  manner  of  expression 
as  well  as  diction  are  the  same  as  in  the  Gospel.  The 
da/i;  is  uncertain  and  must  be  determined  from  internal 
evidence  and  its  relation  tf)  the  Gosjtel  and  Revelation. 
The  common  view  is  that  it  was  written  after  the  Gospel 
from  Ephesns.  The  ohjcct  of  the  epistle  is  didactic,  not 
controversial.  It  aims  at  the  rel'ntation  of  error  by  tho 
presentation  of  fundamental  truth. 


206 


ANALYSIS  OF  THE  LECTURES. 


PART  I.     Peter  and  the  chnrcli  among  ilie  Jews.      Introductory 
remarks,  5. 
Points  of  critical  attack,  5. 

I.  Autliorsliip.  ;'). 

II.  Historical  Question,  5. 

III.  "Jlie  Supernatural,  5. 
Chronoiofry.  ti. 

Design  of  Acts.  7. 
Section  1st.  'J'he  clmrcli  at  .lernsalem,  7. 
I.   Founding  of  tlie  cliurcli,   7. 

1.  Introduction.  7. 

General  character,  7. 

Place,  8. 

Nature  of  the  Kingdom,   8. 

Time,  9. 

Church  contrasted  with  false  expectations 

of  the  .lews.  H 
Commissicm  renewed  to  the  Apostles,  9. 
Critical  questions,  !•. 

2.  From  ascension  to  Pentecost.  9, 
Employment  during  the  ten  days,  9. 
Persons  mentioned,  10. 

Place  of  assemblage,   10. 
Choice  of  a  new  Apostle,  10. 

3.  Pentecost,    12. 

A.  Descent  of  the  Spirit,  12, 

General  traits,  12. 

Time,  l:^.. 

Place  of  assemblage,  14. 

Miraculous  accompaniments,   14. 

Critical   questions — ■ 

J  Nature  of  gift  of  tongues.  "I  ,,, 

I  How  harmonize  Lnke  and  Paul.  /■ 

Design  of  the  gifts — proof,  18. 

Gifts  enumerated,  19. 

B.  Peter's  sermon,  22. 

General  characteristics,  23. 
Doctrine,  24. 
Effects,  SO. 

'J'he  word  etKArjo-ia,   31. 

Mode  of  reception  into   the   church — bap 
tism,  31. 


207 

C.     Oeneral  description  of  the  mother  church,  32. 
II.   History  of  the   church   of  Jerusalem  until    the 
death  of  Stephen,  35. 

1.  First  persecution.  3-5. 

2.  First  corruption.  36. 

3.  Second  persecution.  37. 

4.  Second    interuiil    difficulty— new    office    of 

cJeiicon.  -V.K 

5.  Third  persecution.  41. 

Section  2ni).   E.stension   of  tlie  work  from  Jerusalem  to 
Antioch,  4o. 

I.  Preinvrntii.n  for  the  Gentile  mission,  45. 

Criticii!  point.  45. 

J^ersecution.  45. 

Character  of  the  period,  4f). 

II.  First  extension  to  Sam;iri;i  under  Philip.  47. 

(Jeneral  characteristics,  47. 
liow  related  to  tiie  case  of  Cornelius,  47. 
Helative  position  of  the  Apostles.  48.  - 

First  heathen  opposition.   Simon  Magus,  49. 

III.  rhili|.  and  the  Eunuch,  51. 

IV.  The  conversion  of  Saul,  52. 

Discrepancies.  54. 

Tile  supernatural,   55. 

C()utradic;tiuu>  between  Acts  and  Epistles,  68. 

Visit  to  .lerusaleni,  til. 

V.  The  conversion  of  Cornelius,  61. 

Introductory,  01. 
Tlie  conversion  (53. 
Persons  selected.  03. 
Jieveiation  by  visions,  64. 
Discourse  of  Peter,  t)5. 
Effect  on  the  Jews  — true  and  rationalistic 
views,  60. 

VI.  Antioch,  07. 

Place,  68. 

Barnabas  sent,  not  an  Apostle.  68. 
New  name  '"Christians,"  69. 
OiHces  mentiojied.  70. 

VII.  Herodian  persecution,  71. 

I'olilical  changes.  72. 
PART  II.     Paul  and  the  church  among  the  Oentilea.  74. 
Period   1.   I'auls  lirst  Missionary  Journey,  74. 

I.  Apostles  chosen  for  the  work,  74. 

II.  The  journey.  75. 

1.  Paul  in  Cyprus.  75. 

2.  I'anI  in  Asia  Minor.  77. 

A.  Antioch  in   l^isidia,  78. 

Paul's  first  sermon,  78. 
'JTihingen  tendency  theory,  80. 
Etfeci.  82. 

B.  Iconium.   82. 

C.  Eysira  and  Derbe,  83. 

D.  'I'he  return,  83. 

3.  I'aul  again  with  the  church  at  Antioch,  83 


208 


Period  II.  The  Coiinr-il  of  .Tpni«alein.  84. 

Hi^lntioii  of  tlio  Apostles  to  the  question,  84. 

Hiinnoiiy  nf  Act.s  and  Gal..  87. 
Period  III.  Paul's  second  niissionafy  journey,  !J8. 

Autliorslii|i   and    sources  of  Acts'   "  We" 
passajres,  !)'). 

Perseciiiion  iVoin  heathen  sources,  08. 
P^irst  Grouf)  of  lOpistles.   lO-'). 
Epistles  to  the   i  licssalonians,  10.'). 

First  ]'45i,-tle  to  tne  'l'lu's.=alonians,  106. 

Time  and  place  of  composition.  100. 

Canonicity  and  anlheniicity,  1U8. 

Analysis.    lO'.l. 
Second  iOpistle  to  the  Thessaloiiians,   111. 

'Jime  and  place  of  composition.  111. 

Canonicity  and  authenticity,  112. 

Analysis,    llo. 

Sulijec!  and  manner  of  Paul's  preaching  at 
Corinih.  118. 
Period  IV.  Paul's  third  missionary  journey  121. 
Second  (Jroup  of  l^'pistles,   120. 
Epistles  1o  the  (lahilians.  120. 

'I'ime  and  place  of  comj)Osition,  127. 

Desiirn.  12'.). 

Analysis,  I'il. 
First  Epistle  to  the  Corintliiaus,  13-3. 

'1  ime  and  place  of  composition,  133. 

(icnuinencss  and  authenticity,  134. 

Historical  points,  184. 

Analysis,  142. 
Second  Epistle  to  the  Corinthians.  142. 

'Jime  and  place  of  composition,  143. 

Historical  points,  143. 

Analysis,    147. 
Epistle  to  the  I'omans,  147. 

'lime  and  place  of  composition.  147- 

Origin  of  the  church  at  Home,  148. 

Coin|)osition  of  the  church,  151. 

Occasion  and  object.  1-52. 

Genuineness  of  chapters,  15  and  16,  153. 

Analysis.  154. 
Period  V.   Paul  a  prisoner,  155. 

Third  Group  of  I-'.pistles,  155. 

'lime  and  phice  of  composition,  158. 
Epistle  to  the  ICphesians,  158. 

Authenticity.  150. 

Olject  and  character,  160. 

Analysis.    101. 
Epistle  to  tlie  Colossians.  102. 

Condition  of  the  church,  162. 

Authenticity,  105. 

Analysis.    1()7. 
Philemon — Analysis,  108-169. 


209 


l'liilip|)iaiiR,  Kill. 

'J'inie  iiiid  jjlace  of  composition,  IB'.t. 

Olijoct  and  character,  170. 

Purilj'  of  the  church,    171. 

Genuineness,  172. 

Analysis,    173. 
Fourth  Group  of  Epistles — The  Pastorals,    174. 
First  Epistle  to  Timothy.  176. 

lime  and  place  of  composition,  17H. 

Analysis,    177. 
Epistle  to  'i'itus— Analysis.  178-179. 
.Second  Epistle  to  Timothy,  17'J. 

'I'ime  and  place  of  composition,  ISd. 

Genuinenesss,  181. 

Analysis,  181. 
Fifth  Group  of  Epistles — Hebrews.    185. 

Authorship,  18o. 

Contents,    188. 

Canonicity,  189. 

To  whom  addressed,  190. 

Time  and  place  of  composition,  191. 

Analysis,  191. 
Sixth  Group  of  Epistles— The    Catholic  Epistles.  ]'J2. 

Why  so  called,  192. 

Their  position  in  the  canon.  192. 
Ejiistlc  of  .lames,  192. 

Authorship,  192. 

Canonicity,  197. 

Time  of  composition,  197. 

To  whom  addressed,  197. 
Epistle  of  Peter,    200. 
First  Epistles  of  Peter,  200. 

Canonicity,  2tl2. 

Time  of  composition,  -202. 

Design,  202. 
Second  Ejiistle  of  Peter,  203. 

Genuineness  and  Canonicity,  203. 
Epistle  of  .hide,  204. 

Authorship  and  Canonicity,  204. 

Date  of  writing,  20.5. 
.lohn's  writings,  20o. 
First  Epistle  of  .lohn,  205. 

(jenuineness.  Canonicity,  Date  and  Design.  205. 


9482TC     W 

LBC  UUU 

04-29-04  32180      MS 


Theological  Seminary-Speer  Library 


1    1012  01129  6177 


